Pages:
Author

Topic: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? - page 19. (Read 54943 times)

legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
....
Looked at the sites you presented. All of this debunking has been debunked long ago.

Then bring the proofs right into this thread.  Because so far you have not . "Proofs" that have been brought in have turned out to be the opposite.

"Beams tossed" which don't even go outside the debris field, "Faster than free fall" which isn't supported by the facts presented and which isn't on the seismic record, "nano thermite" which is paint, "Evil Jews" which is total bullshit.

Really, the arguments presented are pathetic.  They'd get you and "F" in 8th grade physics.  Seriously.



The buildings weren't built with 8th grade physics. The planes weren't built using 8th grade physics. The 9/11 inside job wasn't done using 8th grade physics. Nor was it reported on using even 8th grade political science, the only 8th grade science that might have a chance of convincing anyone using science from the 8th grade. Didn't you make it past the 8th grade?

Google all kinds of search words regarding the 9/11 inside job, and you will find all the evidence you need that the official report is just about the worst conspiracy theory around. Why list the info here (even though TECSHARE is doing a good job of it)? Google it.

Cool
The sheer dishonesty in this thread by you and Techshare is appalling. 

In my view it makes no difference whether you purposefully push it or are simply an echo chamber of others who invented the lies.

So far not even one thing has been presented that warrants any even slightly rational investigation of any conspiracy theory relating to 911.  Not even one thing.

Magical nano-thermite, Evil Jews, Free Fall, Explosives, Controlled Detonation, Uncontrolled Detonation....

One thing I have not heard so far is the involvement of Super Evil George Bush Jr.  He was in on the Conspiracy, right?  In the back room with the Evil Jews?
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
....
Looked at the sites you presented. All of this debunking has been debunked long ago.

Then bring the proofs right into this thread.  Because so far you have not . "Proofs" that have been brought in have turned out to be the opposite.

"Beams tossed" which don't even go outside the debris field, "Faster than free fall" which isn't supported by the facts presented and which isn't on the seismic record, "nano thermite" which is paint, "Evil Jews" which is total bullshit.

Really, the arguments presented are pathetic.  They'd get you and "F" in 8th grade physics.  Seriously.



The buildings weren't built with 8th grade physics. The planes weren't built using 8th grade physics. The 9/11 inside job wasn't done using 8th grade physics. Nor was it reported on using even 8th grade political science, the only 8th grade science that might have a chance of convincing anyone using science from the 8th grade. Didn't you make it past the 8th grade?

Google all kinds of search words regarding the 9/11 inside job, and you will find all the evidence you need that the official report is just about the worst conspiracy theory around. Why list the info here (even though TECSHARE is doing a good job of it)? Google it.

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
....
Looked at the sites you presented. All of this debunking has been debunked long ago.

Then bring the proofs right into this thread.  Because so far you have not . "Proofs" that have been brought in have turned out to be the opposite.

"Beams tossed" which don't even go outside the debris field, "Faster than free fall" which isn't supported by the facts presented and which isn't on the seismic record, "nano thermite" which is paint, "Evil Jews" which is total bullshit.

Really, the arguments presented are pathetic.  They'd get you and "F" in 8th grade physics.  Seriously.

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
...and nobody would open their mouths, eh?

https://youtu.be/7gwcQjDhZtI?t=1m53s

RIP Aaron Russo

legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386

A reminder, here are the four initial questions of which we are still discussing #3 and #4.  I'm not going into #1 and #2 until these two are concluded.  

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to collapse the structures.

2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause complete structural failure.

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel multiple 4 ton steel beams hundreds of feet laterally at the readily observable velocities demonstrated.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings cannot coexist with a building collapse due to the resistant force created at the building impacts the lower levels of itself.


You asked what are "my claims."

For #3, I reply that the 100-150 TONS of TNT equivalent in the PE of the structure are SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.  

For #4, I reply that the PE of the structure is SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.

It's pretty simple.  You seem to believe on both points, "INSUFFICIENT," and "another explanation IS NEEDED."

On the seismic record -
Well, all I've done is ask how the heck the seismic record supports anything you say about a 10 second fall?  I looked at it, and I'm just not seeing where to put the zero and the ten second mark.  Do I just get to pick anywhere?  Is there a place that supports your claim?

On the beams -
As for the beams being moved out, you introduced a chart that showed the extent of the debris field, and the beams are within it.  So I'm not seeing what's "unusual."  Is it that they were big and heavy?  How big should the debris field have been to be "natural?"

legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Help me out a bit here.  I said ...

"Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time.  "

Just do it, please.


As soon as you:

1- Explain how the seismic record supports YOUR argument. After all you were the first one to bring it up claiming it supported your argument. He who claims proves. Pointing this burden of proof back at me without explaining your own point is a logical fallacy.

2- Explain the precise mechanism that makes the force of gravity transfer laterally to throw 4 ton hunks of steel 600 feet sideways multiple times in every direction, as well as propel debris in an upward arc in violation of Newtons first law of motion by violating the forces of inertia and gravity.

3- Explain how two 110 story buildings fall at a rate of speed that demonstrates little to no resistance from thousands of supports designed with thousands of percent of redundancy thru the path of most resistance.

4- Explain how building 7, according to NIST itself fell at free fall speeds for over 2 seconds REQUIRING the synchronous removal of ALL support structures in those levels in order to be possible for any frame of time.

5- Explain who is offering this billion dollar payout for talking about the coordination of the attacks.

6- Explain how about 12 stories of a building was able to crush the other 98 stories completely to the ground without itself being destroyed, and how a similar effect could be repeated again in the other tower in violation of Newton's 3rd law of motion.

7- Explain how a hurricane is a "static load"

8- Explain how kerosene fires could weaken the steel structures enough to cause a complete collapse of both towers in spite of not being even capable of reaching sufficient temperatures to do this let alone long enough burn times to do so EVEN IF they did (which they didn't).

9- Explain how planes could impart sufficient kinetic energy to completely collapse the structures in spite of them being specifically designed to be able to withstand this exact scenario.

10- Explain how temperatures in the 800-1000 Kelvin range were created in the debris pile 5 days after the attack as measured by NASA satellites.


You demand accountability for my statements over and over again (which I have been providing) yet repeatedly gloss over and just ignore anything that does not confirm your own bias. Convenient you do not have to provide any evidence in response to these points. In your mind denial is evidence enough.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEED
No, that's your distorted reading of the text.  You assume that the first exterior panels to strike the ground came from the very top of the tower.  Get real.  Please revise your math to include a variety of heights from which the first panels to hit the ground came from.




....
didn't have a clue that the potential energy of any object at 1000 feet was 500 times what would be required to move that object 600 feet sideways

The only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally.

Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.”

IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.

The force required is proportionally related to the distance, not exponentially related.  You were wrong, admit it and move on.

....As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument .....
Okay, let's use eyeballs.  I take a small bag of flour outside, throw it up in the air.  It comes down, and goes splat.  Flour goes everywhere.  Hey, guess what?  There's sort of a cloud of white over where it landed.  Some of it went up, and some went sideways.  But you claim gravity only works downward?  Hmm....




So what the heck is your "10 seconds" claiming?  That's when the entire mass of the WTC hit the ground?  When the first piece of junk hit the ground?  When the last piece hit the ground?  
Now let's talk about your seismic charts.  Can you kindly show me where the famous ten seconds begins and ends?   Thanks.

I'm just not seeing how you get a precise number from the seismic charts.  They show exactly what I would expect to see, waveforms from a big pile of rubble forming.  Please show us how you read this chart to get your precise "free fall" speeds.  I'm not buying this garbage one bit.


The First Building's fall:



Well?  Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time. 

By the way.  Yes, I am perfectly fine sticking with 8th grade physics, chemistry and math to refute your "Experts."  Bring them on.  Here's a challenge.  Show me one that requires 9th grade work to rebut their bat shit crazy Truthiness.

LOL...


Deny laws of physics, talk about 8th grade physics, make personal attacks. I am seeing a pattern here.
Help me out a bit here.  I said ...

"Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time.  "

Just do it, please.
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEED
No, that's your distorted reading of the text.  You assume that the first exterior panels to strike the ground came from the very top of the tower.  Get real.  Please revise your math to include a variety of heights from which the first panels to hit the ground came from.




....
didn't have a clue that the potential energy of any object at 1000 feet was 500 times what would be required to move that object 600 feet sideways

The only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally.

Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.”

IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.

The force required is proportionally related to the distance, not exponentially related.  You were wrong, admit it and move on.

....As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument .....
Okay, let's use eyeballs.  I take a small bag of flour outside, throw it up in the air.  It comes down, and goes splat.  Flour goes everywhere.  Hey, guess what?  There's sort of a cloud of white over where it landed.  Some of it went up, and some went sideways.  But you claim gravity only works downward?  Hmm....




So what the heck is your "10 seconds" claiming?  That's when the entire mass of the WTC hit the ground?  When the first piece of junk hit the ground?  When the last piece hit the ground?  
Now let's talk about your seismic charts.  Can you kindly show me where the famous ten seconds begins and ends?   Thanks.

I'm just not seeing how you get a precise number from the seismic charts.  They show exactly what I would expect to see, waveforms from a big pile of rubble forming.  Please show us how you read this chart to get your precise "free fall" speeds.  I'm not buying this garbage one bit.


The First Building's fall:



Well?  Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time. 

By the way.  Yes, I am perfectly fine sticking with 8th grade physics, chemistry and math to refute your "Experts."  Bring them on.  Here's a challenge.  Show me one that requires 9th grade work to rebut their bat shit crazy Truthiness.

LOL...


Deny laws of physics, talk about 8th grade physics, make personal attacks. I am seeing a pattern here.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373

Nothing that refutes the 9/11 inside job here.    Cool

Sure, buddy.  Just slide your story around so that it doesn't require explosives, or magical nano-thermite cast into the WTC concrete.  

Keep the lies flowing, so that the next Muslim terrorist is certain his people are the victims, and certain the Great Satan is the Great Satan.  A good, solid propaganda front doesn't need hard physics or solid facts.  Slide that story around, buddy.

Generally, I admire a guy who follows his own advice. But shouldn't you really wake up to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job?

Cool
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEED
No, that's your distorted reading of the text.  You assume that the first exterior panels to strike the ground came from the very top of the tower.  Get real.  Please revise your math to include a variety of heights from which the first panels to hit the ground came from.

....
didn't have a clue that the potential energy of any object at 1000 feet was 500 times what would be required to move that object 600 feet sideways

The only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally.

Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.”

IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.

The force required is proportionally related to the distance, not exponentially related.  You were wrong, admit it and move on.

....As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument .....
Okay, let's use eyeballs.  I take a small bag of flour outside, throw it up in the air.  It comes down, and goes splat.  Flour goes everywhere.  Hey, guess what?  There's sort of a cloud of white over where it landed.  Some of it went up, and some went sideways.  But you claim gravity only works downward?  Hmm....




So what the heck is your "10 seconds" claiming?  That's when the entire mass of the WTC hit the ground?  When the first piece of junk hit the ground?  When the last piece hit the ground?  
Now let's talk about your seismic charts.  Can you kindly show me where the famous ten seconds begins and ends?   Thanks.

I'm just not seeing how you get a precise number from the seismic charts.  They show exactly what I would expect to see, waveforms from a big pile of rubble forming.  Please show us how you read this chart to get your precise "free fall" speeds.  I'm not buying this garbage one bit.


The First Building's fall:



Well?  Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time.  

By the way.  Yes, I am perfectly fine sticking with 8th grade physics, chemistry and math to refute your "Experts."  Bring them on.  Here's a challenge.  Show me one that requires 9th grade work to rebut their bat shit crazy Truthiness.

LOL...

Nothing that refutes the 9/11 inside job here.    Cool

Sure, buddy.  Just slide your story around so that it doesn't require explosives, or magical nano-thermite cast into the WTC concrete.  

Keep the lies flowing, so that the next Muslim terrorist is certain his people are the victims, and certain the Great Satan is the Great Satan.  A good, solid propaganda front doesn't need hard physics or solid facts.  Slide that story around, buddy.
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEED
No, that's your distorted reading of the text.  You assume that the first exterior panels to strike the ground came from the very top of the tower.  Get real.  Please revise your math to include a variety of heights from which the first panels to hit the ground came from.

....
didn't have a clue that the potential energy of any object at 1000 feet was 500 times what would be required to move that object 600 feet sideways

The only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally.

Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.”

IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.

The force required is proportionally related to the distance, not exponentially related.  You were wrong, admit it and move on.

....As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument .....
Okay, let's use eyeballs.  I take a small bag of flour outside, throw it up in the air.  It comes down, and goes splat.  Flour goes everywhere.  Hey, guess what?  There's sort of a cloud of white over where it landed.  Some of it went up, and some went sideways.  But you claim gravity only works downward?  Hmm....




So what the heck is your "10 seconds" claiming?  That's when the entire mass of the WTC hit the ground?  When the first piece of junk hit the ground?  When the last piece hit the ground?  
Now let's talk about your seismic charts.  Can you kindly show me where the famous ten seconds begins and ends?   Thanks.

I'm just not seeing how you get a precise number from the seismic charts.  They show exactly what I would expect to see, waveforms from a big pile of rubble forming.  Please show us how you read this chart to get your precise "free fall" speeds.  I'm not buying this garbage one bit.


The First Building's fall:



Well?  Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time. 

By the way.  Yes, I am perfectly fine sticking with 8th grade physics, chemistry and math to refute your "Experts."  Bring them on.  Here's a challenge.  Show me one that requires 9th grade work to rebut their bat shit crazy Truthiness.

LOL...

Nothing that refutes the 9/11 inside job here.    Cool
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEED
No, that's your distorted reading of the text.  You assume that the first exterior panels to strike the ground came from the very top of the tower.  Get real.  Please revise your math to include a variety of heights from which the first panels to hit the ground came from.

....
didn't have a clue that the potential energy of any object at 1000 feet was 500 times what would be required to move that object 600 feet sideways

The only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally.

Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.”

IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.

The force required is proportionally related to the distance, not exponentially related.  You were wrong, admit it and move on.

....As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument .....
Okay, let's use eyeballs.  I take a small bag of flour outside, throw it up in the air.  It comes down, and goes splat.  Flour goes everywhere.  Hey, guess what?  There's sort of a cloud of white over where it landed.  Some of it went up, and some went sideways.  But you claim gravity only works downward?  Hmm....




So what the heck is your "10 seconds" claiming?  That's when the entire mass of the WTC hit the ground?  When the first piece of junk hit the ground?  When the last piece hit the ground?  
Now let's talk about your seismic charts.  Can you kindly show me where the famous ten seconds begins and ends?   Thanks.

I'm just not seeing how you get a precise number from the seismic charts.  They show exactly what I would expect to see, waveforms from a big pile of rubble forming.  Please show us how you read this chart to get your precise "free fall" speeds.  I'm not buying this garbage one bit.


The First Building's fall:



Well?  Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time. 

By the way.  Yes, I am perfectly fine sticking with 8th grade physics, chemistry and math to refute your "Experts."  Bring them on.  Here's a challenge.  Show me one that requires 9th grade work to rebut their bat shit crazy Truthiness.

LOL...
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
Article In Saudi Daily: U.S. Planned, Carried Out 9/11 Attacks – But Blames Others For Them

On the eve of President Obama's April 2016 visit to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Congress began debating the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), that would, inter alia, allow the families of victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the Saudi government for damages. Also in April 2016, the New York Times published that a 2002 congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks had found that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot. The commission's conclusions, said the paper, were specified in a report that has not been released publicly.[1]

 The JASTA bill, which was passed by the Senate on May 17, 2016, triggered fury in Saudi Arabia, expressed both in statements by the Saudi foreign minister and in scathing attacks on the U.S. in the Saudi press.[2] On April 28, 2016, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat published an exceptionally harsh article on this topic by Saudi legal expert Katib Al-Shammari, who argued that the U.S. itself had planned and carried out 9/11....

That's the sort of anti-US propaganda I'm talking about.  Make the Muslim the victim, the US the Great Satan.  Yeah right.   Of course it's only a very small part of the propaganda countries like Saudi Arabia feed to their helpless subjects.
legendary
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1000
Soon, I have to go away.
Article In Saudi Daily: U.S. Planned, Carried Out 9/11 Attacks – But Blames Others For Them

On the eve of President Obama's April 2016 visit to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Congress began debating the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), that would, inter alia, allow the families of victims of the September 11 attacks to sue the Saudi government for damages. Also in April 2016, the New York Times published that a 2002 congressional inquiry into the 9/11 attacks had found that Saudi officials living in the United States at the time had a hand in the plot. The commission's conclusions, said the paper, were specified in a report that has not been released publicly.[1]

 The JASTA bill, which was passed by the Senate on May 17, 2016, triggered fury in Saudi Arabia, expressed both in statements by the Saudi foreign minister and in scathing attacks on the U.S. in the Saudi press.[2] On April 28, 2016, the London-based Saudi daily Al-Hayat published an exceptionally harsh article on this topic by Saudi legal expert Katib Al-Shammari, who argued that the U.S. itself had planned and carried out 9/11, while placing the blame on a shifting series of others – first Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, then Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and now Saudi Arabia.

He wrote that American threats to reveal documents that supposedly point to Saudi involvement in 9/11 are part of standard U.S. policy of exposing archival documents to use as leverage against various countries – which he calls "victory by means of archives."
Following are excerpts from Al-Shammari's article:[3]

 "Those who follow American policy see that it is built upon the principle of advance planning and future probabilities. This is because it occasionally presents a certain topic to a country that it does not wish [to bring up] at that time but [that it is] reserving in its archives as an ace to play [at a later date] in order to pressure that country. Anyone revisiting... [statements by] George H.W. Bush regarding Operation Desert Storm might find that he acknowledged that the U.S. Army could have invaded Iraq in the 1990s, but that [the Americans] had preferred to keep Saddam Hussein around as a bargaining chip for [use against] other Gulf states. However, once the Shi'ite wave began to advance, the Americans wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, since they no longer saw him as an ace up their sleeve.


"September 11 is one of winning cards in the American archives, because all the wise people in the world who are experts on American policy and who analyze the images and the videos [of 9/11] agree unanimously that what happened in the [Twin] Towers was a purely American action, planned and carried out within the U.S. Proof of this is the sequence of continuous explosions that dramatically ripped through both buildings... Expert structural engineers demolished them with explosives, while the planes crashing [into them] only gave the green light for the detonation – they were not the reason for the collapse. But the U.S. still spreads blame in all directions. [This policy] can be dubbed 'victory by means of archives.'
"On September 11, the U.S. attained several victories at the same time, that [even] the hawks [who were at that time] in the White House could not have imagined.

Some of them can be enumerated as follows:



"1.   The U.S. created, in public opinion, an obscure enemy – terrorism – which became what American presidents blamed for all their mistakes, and also became the sole motivation for any dirty operation that American politicians and military figures desire to carry out in any country. [The] terrorism [label] was applied to Muslims, and specifically to Saudi Arabia.

"2.   Utilizing this incident [9/11], the U.S. launched a new age of global armament. Everyone wanted to acquire all kinds of weapons to defend themselves and at the same time battle the obscure enemy, terrorism – [even though] up to this very moment we do not know the essence of this terrorism of which the U.S. speaks, except [to say that] that it is Islamic...

"3.   The U.S. made the American people choose from two bad options: either live peacefully [but] remain exposed to the danger of death [by terrorism] at any moment, or starve in safety, because [the country's budget will be spent on sending] the Marines even as far as Mars to defend you.

 "Lo and behold, today, we see these archives revealed before us: A New York court accuses the Iranian regime of responsibility for 9/11, and we [also] see a bill [in Congress] accusing Saudi Arabia of being behind it [sic]. This is after the previous Iraqi regime was accused of being behind it. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were also blamed for it, and we do not know who [will be blamed] tomorrow! But [whoever it is], we will not be surprised at all, since this is the essence of how the American archives, that are civilized and respect freedoms and democracy, operate.

"The nature of the U.S. is that it cannot exist without an enemy... [For example,] after a period during which it did not fight anyone [i.e. following World War II], the U.S. created a new kind of war – the Cold War... Then, when the Soviet era ended, after we Muslims helped the religions and fought Communism on their [the Americans'] behalf, they began to see Muslims as their new enemy! The U.S. saw a need for creating a new enemy – and planned, organized, and carried this out [i.e. blamed Muslims for terrorism]. This will never end until it [the U.S.] accomplishes the goals it has set for itself.

"So why not let these achievements be credited to the American administration, while insurance companies pay for the damages, whether domestic or foreign? This, my dear Arab and Muslim, is the policy of the American archives."

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/9202.htm
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
.....

If you don't know where the official story resides yet, why are you even in this thread?

Eighth grade physics, math and chemistry again? Why are you continually trying to use a bottle-rocket to go to the moon? Just because a few of the principles hold true in, both, bottle rockets and moon shots... or are you really trying to do this?
.....

Unfortunately for you...

Delta V = ISP * g * ln(Ms/Mf)

... governs both bottle rockets and moon shots.
Wow! I had totally thought you wouldn't say something like this.

Notice that I said, "Just because a few of the principles hold true in, both, bottle rockets and moon shots..." If you ever build a bottle rocket to scale large enough so that it could reach the moon, let me know. I wanna watch the blast-off... from a distance, with binoculars, of course.


Large enough?

More idiotic anti scientific, anti-physics gibberish.

Plug ISP = 50 into the equation, set Ms and Mf, and you will see the performance of a black powder rocket.

If you can't see what math or physics even does, then you are incompetent to even talk about 911.

Oh wait, I forgot.  It's the Evil Joes, isn't it?  In your mind.

Ho, ho, ho. You want to get away from 9/11, so I talk about bottle rockets. Then you distract from bottle rockets with a bunch of gibberish.....
Argument from ridicule, ad hominem.  The last refuge of losers.

Please product some actual arguments for the twin towers atrocity that cannot be refuted by 8th grade chemistry, math and physics.  Otherwise, your 911 Truther arguments are basically, ridiculous.

So go watch those dumb ass movies on Youtube, and watch your asinine conspiracy linkys and come back with some argument that CAN'T be refuted with 8th grade stuff.

Your problem, not mine.

legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373
.....

If you don't know where the official story resides yet, why are you even in this thread?

Eighth grade physics, math and chemistry again? Why are you continually trying to use a bottle-rocket to go to the moon? Just because a few of the principles hold true in, both, bottle rockets and moon shots... or are you really trying to do this?
.....

Unfortunately for you...

Delta V = ISP * g * ln(Ms/Mf)

... governs both bottle rockets and moon shots.
Wow! I had totally thought you wouldn't say something like this.

Notice that I said, "Just because a few of the principles hold true in, both, bottle rockets and moon shots..." If you ever build a bottle rocket to scale large enough so that it could reach the moon, let me know. I wanna watch the blast-off... from a distance, with binoculars, of course.


Large enough?

More idiotic anti scientific, anti-physics gibberish.

Plug ISP = 50 into the equation, set Ms and Mf, and you will see the performance of a black powder rocket.

If you can't see what math or physics even does, then you are incompetent to even talk about 911.

Oh wait, I forgot.  It's the Evil Joes, isn't it?  In your mind.

Ho, ho, ho. You want to get away from 9/11, so I talk about bottle rockets. Then you distract from bottle rockets with a bunch of gibberish.

Build yourself a bottle rocket big enough so that it carries enough fuel to get to the moon, and watch it explode or crash or fizzle.

Same way, use 8th grade math, chemistry and physics to build an 8th grade Twin Towers, and fly 8th grade planes into them, and see if you even get off the ground.

I bet you still chase 8th grade girls, too.

Cool
Pages:
Jump to: