|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 60)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Not according to the FEMA report. They claim fire as the primary caused for the collapse. |
yes, but the primary cause of fire is due to the nature of the construction of the towers. fire + "tube in a tube" structural design. if a building was structurally sound before damage, then fire would be listed as the primary cause, even if the specific design of the towers was indeed a contributing factor.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
He has, which wasn't a process without resistance. It's beeing peer reviewed. ;) |
how long before we have an analysis, do you know?
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
And I went over [part] of the section on Jones at debunking911.com, I didn't find anything convincing so far. |
well we disagree there then ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Experts are also the ones proposing/investigating the controlled demoliton theory. And Jones is more than qualified, especially in demonstrating the scientific plausibility of the pancake theory. |
i think given the insanely complex nature of examining the tower collapses, that a degree in physics isnt enough. thats why all kinds of experts from FEMA & NIST were consulted.
| quote: |
physicists are smart as ..... but they know all about engineering and they know even less about real world systems. essentially they are glorified math geeks that live in a world where everything is built to spec with a tolerance of +- 0 mm. when even with todays technology buildings are often feet longer than they are supposed to be by drawing.....
the difference between a physicist and an engineer is that an engineer understands the physics, but understands complex real world systems.... and also knows that pocket protectors shouldnt be worn out in public |
there are just too many factors for one physics professor to adequately asses it all (imo). however, i will wait for the results of his peer review before continuing this discussion. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
From Wikipedia:
| quote: |
Paul Craig Roberts is an economist and a nationally syndicated columnist for Creator's Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and he holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College. He is considered to be a Reagan conservative.
In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States [1]. |
And on 9-11:
| quote: |
September 11, 2001 attacks
Of the 9/11 Commission Report he wrote in 2006, "One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations." (see Criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report). He has reported what he says are findings by experts that conclude there is a large energy deficit in the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings and, says that this deficit remains unexplained.
Roberts, a supply-side economist, comments on the "scientific impossibility" of the official explanation for the events on 9/11 and says those engineers and physicists, who accept this theory are wrong. On August 18, 2006, he wrote:
I will begin by stating what we know to be a solid incontrovertible scientific fact. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to “pancake” at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false... Since the damning incontrovertible fact has not been investigated, speculation and “conspiracy theories” have filled the void. Some of the speculation is based on circumstantial evidence and is plausible. Other of the speculation is untenable, and it is used to protect the official explanation by branding all skeptics “conspiracy theorists.” . The Popular Mechanics article and the TV documentary are obviously false since they both endorse the official explanation that the WTC buildings “pancaked” at free fall speed, an obvious scientific impossibility. [4]
On September 14, 2006, he wrote:
The explanation that the three WTC buildings collapsed as a result of damage and fire is a mere assertion. The assertion is not backed up with scientific calculation to demonstrate that the energy from the airliners, fire, and gravity were sufficient to collapse the buildings. A number of independent authorities believe that there is a very large energy deficit in the official account of the collapse of the buildings. Until this issue is resolved, the official explanation is merely an assertion no matter who believes it. [4]
On September 7, 2006,he wrote:
I do not know what happened on 9/11, and I don’t expect to ever find out. Neither government nor media show any interest in providing us with anything except a political commission’s report. [4]
|
|
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
so now we have economists critiquing the collapse?
that freefall comment is bull. it didnt fall at freefall speed. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Its an interesting doctrine in this 21st century - weak terrorist cell groups, operating from underground, are allowed by the governments to carry out the terrorist attacks (its pretty much confirmed that US had the intelligence and allies memos that attacks were forthcoming, and NORAD was playing war games at the same time of the attacks to shoot down planes), the terrorist gained nothing for the attackers, but helping the governnment invade and take over those lands. And this keeps happening. Its like the terrorists are helping these western governments, falling into their hands to create an excuse for their expansion and agenda ... be it for oil, more power, invasion of a different country. Its very convenient to have an excuse, and then these same terrorists gain absolute nothing and then these same governments who claim to be victimized by the attacks - instead of securing borders they expand their foreign policy, open up their borders, pass laws taking people's liberties and invade foreign coountries.
Examples: Russia, USA, Nazi Germany, UK, ...
Only a very ignorant person will take this bigger picture and say that the governments have nothing to do with the terrorist attacks, because these same governnments are the beneficiaries of these attacks |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
only a very ignorant person would assume governments are behind these attacks without any evidence to support it.
only an ignorant person would believe terrorist attacks are necessarily designed to achieve anything more than (whattya know!) creating terror.
only an ignorant person would believe that members of parliament or spy agencies are THAT different to any other citizen, and murdering 3000 of their own civilians means nothing to them.
only an ignorant person would assume there arent enemies of the state that really do exist. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
PkcRAISTLIN might probably say "well, the government just decided to use the situation to its best advantage for its policies" ... but the government's actions in response to this are very criminal.
Instead of helping and protecting its people, it decides to instead cash-in, allegedly by luck, on these "misfortunes". The government and big business are happy making the big bucks, people are satisfied with the government's status-quo on the issue (instead of closing the borders, it just takes people's freedoms away which doesnt prevent futute terrorist attacks at all), it flies out key terrorist suspects out of the country first class planes (like Bin Laden family getting first class ticket out of USA after 9/11 while all other flights are grounded), etc ....
So basically, in the end, the government is quite happy the attacks happened. Without the attacks that killed many innocent people that could have been easily prevented if Bush didnt pass EYE W991 directive barring arrests of Al Qaeda operatives, Bush would have not been re-elected president. He would have not received so much support and even today he wouldn't even have his 30 percent support. In the end, the US government was the biggest beneficiary of the terrorist attacks, which they know about ... |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
So now the innocent US government uses this 9/11 excuse whenever it can to do its dirty work, like making up phoney links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq to invade Iraq, which turned out to be false, and not only there was not a single hijacker from Iraq or Afghanistan, but also there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. OOOOOOPS! It turns out even CIA said there was no connection, yet the White House insisted in lying to the people and saying Iraq had chemical weapons and was tied to Al-Qaeda and needed to be disarmed to protect the region bla bla bla bla ..., man, how stupid do people have to be to ignore this???
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...90800777_2.html
Quoted from above link:
In a classified January 2003 report, for instance, the CIA concluded that Hussein "viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat." But one day after that conclusion was published, Levin noted, Vice President Cheney said the Iraqi government "aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."
|
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
PkcRAISTLIN might probably say "well, the government just decided to use the situation to its best advantage for its policies" ... but the government's actions in response to this are very criminal. |
im not here to debate the government's activities after the fact. it is irrelevant.
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
it flies out key terrorist suspects out of the country first class planes (like Bin Laden family getting first class ticket out of USA after 9/11 while all other flights are grounded), etc .... |
whats your point here? i hear you CTs crying about this, as if its evidence of a damned thing. the flight was chartered by the saudi government, concerned over retributions for their citizens. whats the big deal? especially since they were all investigated before being given the green light :rolleyes: arguments like this are typical of the CT brigade, trying to create doubt without actually providing any evidence.
| quote: |
Bill Carter, the FBI spokesman, is adamant. "We were given full access to the individuals on that plane," he says, "and we were satisfied that we did not believe any of those individuals had anything to do with the 9/11 plots." |
link
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
So basically, in the end, the government is quite happy the attacks happened. Without the attacks that killed many innocent people that could have been easily prevented if Bush didnt pass EYE W991 directive barring arrests of Al Qaeda operatives, Bush would have not been re-elected president. He would have not received so much support and even today he wouldn't even have his 30 percent support. In the end, the US government was the biggest beneficiary of the terrorist attacks, which they know about... |
empty rhetoric and assumptions. you cant assume bush would have or would have not been re-elected. stop spurting bull as if its the truth. would have his 30% support today you say? you wouldnt happen to think that the mess in iraq is actually contributing to his poor polls do you? couldnt possibly be.
rhetoric and grandstanding about "ifs" and non sequitur connections isnt the smoking gun. 5 years and counting... |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
The most pathetic thing is most people fail to realize that USA/Bush government has continued to get away with these lies, terrible mistakes and awful awful cover-ups. Come on, Clinton was impeached for having sex in Oval Office. Bush makes an order which results in deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, OOOOPS, and noone talks about impeachment. Then Bush passes laws that contradict the OATH THAT BUSH DID WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE - TO RESPECT AND FOLLOW THE CONSTITUION, yet he passes laws to literally by-pass it. And all citizens like pkcRAISTLIN think its quite OK, USA had nothing to do with attacks, they're just opportunists ...
OPPORTUNISTS MY ASS ... THEY LET THE ATTACKS HAPPEN DESPITE GOOD INTELLIGENCE. THEY CASHED IN ON THE ATTACKS, TAKING PEOPLE'S FREEDOMS AWAY AND LEAVING THE BORDERS OPEN. THEY LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BREAK CONSTITUTION LAWS and other stuff ... OOOOOOOPS! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
So now the innocent US government uses this 9/11 excuse whenever it can to do its dirty work, like making up phoney links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq to invade Iraq, which turned out to be false, and not only there was not a single hijacker from Iraq or Afghanistan, but also there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. OOOOOOPS! It turns out even CIA said there was no connection, yet the White House insisted in lying to the people and saying Iraq had chemical weapons and was tied to Al-Qaeda and needed to be disarmed to protect the region bla bla bla bla ..., man, how stupid do people have to be to ignore this??? |
oh, because the taliban were a regime that deserved to stay in power, and didnt at all harbour and support a terrorist group that had committed an act of war against the united states :rolleyes:
the administration's misuse of intelligence reports to justify the iraq invasion does not equate to complicity in the attacks. you cant make that connection. its like me saying the terrorists obviously planned 9/11 because look at them now- theyre killing marines in baghdad :rolleyes:
if you have something directly related to 9/11, then please post it. but arguing about iraq etc isnt relevant to whether there were bombs in the building planted by the government :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im not here to debate the government's activities after the fact. it is irrelevant.
whats your point here? i hear you CTs crying about this, as if its evidence of a damned thing. the flight was chartered by the saudi government, concerned over retributions for their citizens. whats the big deal? especially since they were all investigated before being given the green light :rolleyes: arguments like this are typical of the CT brigade, trying to create doubt without actually providing any evidence.
link
empty rhetoric and assumptions. you cant assume bush would have or would have not been re-elected. stop spurting bull as if its the truth. would have his 30% support today you say? you wouldnt happen to think that the mess in iraq is actually contributing to his poor polls do you? couldnt possibly be.
rhetoric and grandstanding about "ifs" and non sequitur connections isnt the smoking gun. 5 years and counting... |
I am still amazed at your ignorance. Well, go on, ask for more laws taking your freedoms, more terrorist attacks, more wars for oil. Frankly, its pointless talking to you because no matter what is said to you you think that everything's fine: the government is doing a good and RIGHT job, the invasion of Iraq was justified and there was a terrorist coonnections to it, US government didnt have any knowledge of 9/11 attacks beforehand, weapons of mass destruction were OBVIOUSLY found, bla bla bla. Man, you are one of the most ignorant people I have ever met in my whole life. You deserve a medal for that! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
The most pathetic thing is most people fail to realize that USA/Bush government has continued to get away with these lies, terrible mistakes and awful awful cover-ups. Come on, Clinton was impeached for having sex in Oval Office. Bush makes an order which results in deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, OOOOPS, and noone talks about impeachment. Then Bush passes laws that contradict the OATH THAT BUSH DID WHEN HE TOOK OFFICE - TO RESPECT AND FOLLOW THE CONSTITUION, yet he passes laws to literally by-pass it. And all citizens like pkcRAISTLIN think its quite OK, USA had nothing to do with attacks, they're just opportunists ...
OPPORTUNISTS MY ASS ... THEY LET THE ATTACKS HAPPEN DESPITE GOOD INTELLIGENCE. THEY CASHED IN ON THE ATTACKS, TAKING PEOPLE'S FREEDOMS AWAY AND LEAVING THE BORDERS OPEN. THEY LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, BREAK CONSTITUTION LAWS and other stuff ... OOOOOOOPS! |
whatever you reckon mate. |
|
|
|
|
