Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Investigate 9/11 part II (if we're not all 9/11'd out)

133 replies

JanH · 03/01/2007 22:32

Original thread here

OP posts:
ludaloo · 04/01/2007 12:50

Oh and Paula...... It is America which lead the world to believe it was terrists was it not????

Did you see any television footage saying this could have been the Government???

FOX tv...(government funded BTW) Had it plastered all over the place as did every other bloomin tv channel

ludaloo · 04/01/2007 12:54

Have you seen the interviews with Alex or Steven Jones on FOX.....
They are absolutely battered about! They get asked a question and then not given the opportunity to reply!! Ridiculed and dismissed...pelted with questions and the only answers they are able to give are half words!!! Chopped mid sentance by the interviewer. Some of it is really uncomfortable to watch!!!!!!!

paulaplumpbottom · 04/01/2007 13:00

O'reily is that unfair to everyone he interviews

ludaloo · 04/01/2007 13:06

Meria Heller

Quite long but very interesting

ludaloo · 04/01/2007 13:10

Yes...thats my point Paula!!!.....

Its practically pointless even having these televisied interviews!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It doesn't take a genius to see that media is not the answer to all the questions!!!

JanH · 04/01/2007 13:13

Great quote from Theodore Roosevelt which I've seen several times recently:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

OP posts:
FluffyMummy123 · 04/01/2007 13:24

Message withdrawn

jura · 04/01/2007 13:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jura · 04/01/2007 13:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JoolsToo · 04/01/2007 14:26

This is what I'm trying to get across mb - you are a science teacher, you know about physics, Jeff King has studied physics and engineering, you are saying different things.

I know nothing about physics.

You say the steel would not have 'melted' these experts (at the top half of the webpage) say it did

did you read this? as I say, I know nothing about physics but this seemed fairly compelling to me?

Blandmum · 04/01/2007 14:33

You don't know that all of the flames were ocxygen staved, for starters.

I don't, and neither do the experts. So if you don't know you can't build further premices on it!

It doesn't matter if the steel didn't melt. At the temperature tha av fuel would have got to, it would have lots its ability to stant upm and would have collased....I know know if I can stand to type this again!

Papillon · 04/01/2007 14:38

despite there being oxygen available, there was really not alot of flame, just alot of smoke and the aviation fluid would have burnt off quickly.

The WTC did not look to be burning with flames like the Madrid tower was, and it collasped from the top - so no internal oven burning below started the collaspe.

JoolsToo · 04/01/2007 15:24

steady on mb, take deep breaths now, you sound like my dh, getting exasperated with me! (dh won't even talk to me about it!)

okay, what about the second tower? Most of that fuel 'appeared' to explode outside the building to the front and side as the nose of the plane exited the tower on the other side so therefore not a lot of fuel in that building?

Also there was no avaiation fuel in WTC7. No steel skyscraper in 100 years before or since 911 has collapsed due to fire. Silverstein says they agreed to 'pull' it. Silverstein has a LOT to gain (how many billions?) from doing this.

This is how conspiracy theories start. Someone says hey 'how come WTC7 came down like that?' So if someone came out and said 'yes, the building was unsafe, we pulled it' - end of story (I think) but the 'experts' can't even decide on what happened there 5 years down the line. Silverstein has changed his story (or someone on his behalf) saying that 'pulled' meant the firemen of which there were none in the buidling. Then there is video evidence of WTCs 5 and 6 being demolished and the guy using the term 'pull'. Now I know it's all semantics and doesn't 'prove' anything but it's why folk question stuff.

Papillon · 04/01/2007 16:15

further to my post at 6am this morning.

"The U.N. cites a figure of 700,000 Iraqis who've fled their country,

here is how President Bush depicted what the U.S. had done for Iraq, following Iraqi elections:

"For the people across the broader Middle East, a free Iraq will be an inspiration.(Iraqis) have proved that the desire for liberty in the heart of the Middle East is for real. They have shown diverse people can come together and work out their differencesYears from now, people will look back on the formation of a unity government in Iraq as a decisive moment in the story of liberty, a moment when freedom gained a firm foothold in the Middle East and the forces of terror began their long retreat."

The speechwriter who equipped President Bush with these lines should be burning with shame. President Bush indulged in a fantasy at a time when thousands of Iraqi civilians were fleeing abroad, every month, to escape worsening violence and tens of thousands more were being displaced internally nearly half a million in the last ten months, according to UNHCR.

In reality, there were no encouraging signs of the U.S. troop presence stabilizing the situation in Iraq. Today, even President Bush acknowledges that news from Iraq is "unsettling," as daily headlines report battles, kidnappings, torture, and murder.

Nevertheless, the President will likely ask the Congress to approve 97.7 billion dollars in supplemental spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which will be in addition to the Pentagon's $560 billion dollar budget. According to some estimates, U.S. taxpayers will pay close to 2 trillion dollars for a doomed war in Iraq.

100,000 Iraqi refugees who, every month, according to U.N. estimates, flee from Iraq."

source...
www.counterpunch.org

donnie · 04/01/2007 16:19

I haven't read this thread properly and probably won't as conspiracy theories are a bit sad. But I would like to say : what is the point in conparing the numbers of people killed in the 9/11 attacks with the numbers of people killed in the Iraqi war?

they're all bloody dead.

ludaloo · 04/01/2007 16:22
  1. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

NIST Report answer to the smoke thing.....

ludaloo · 04/01/2007 16:30

It is such a shame proper investigations couldn't have been carried out....
Then there might have been a very different answer to such a question....and a lot of other questions like it.

ludaloo · 04/01/2007 16:31

Bit of NIST Report

ludaloo · 04/01/2007 16:40

The NIST report doesn't seem to seperate the Towers either.....
Which is not very accurate in my eye...they were hit completely differently...yet fell down the same...

ludaloo · 04/01/2007 16:42

WTC 7 NIST

JoolsToo · 04/01/2007 16:49

yes I agree with that point Luda

Papillon · 04/01/2007 17:32

" what is the point in conparing the numbers of people killed in the 9/11 attacks with the numbers of people killed in the Iraqi war? "

Direct consequences...

Before 9/11 the US supported Hussein to fight against Iranian Isalmic fundamentalist. After 9/11 reasons given, which differ from the reason, for invading Iraq were the USA feared that Hussein would deliver weapons of mass destruction to Al-Qaeda.

The White House still claims a direct link between Hussein and Al-Qaeda despite a report released by CIA a few months ago, stating that there is not proof or evidence of a link to Al-Qaeda - no known proof.

btw,
America has just completed the new US embassy in Bagdad for 3000 people! 3000!! The 3000 is long term staff.

Blandmum · 04/01/2007 17:35

The point I was making is that we don't know that all of the fire was oxygen starved just because some of the fires might have been. Another logic leap that you cannot make with confidence.

JoolsToo · 04/01/2007 17:43

mb, are not a little surprised that all 3 towers collapsed identically, given the differences in each catastophe? (iykwim!)

Blandmum · 04/01/2007 17:45

I very much doubt it was identically in all respects, similarl, yes, I'd agree with that. And no, I'm not surprised since, and goodness knows I've typed this a few times.....they were designed to fall that way.

Because if you have a very tall building, surrounded by other buildings, you want it to fall within as small a footprint as possible.

Swipe left for the next trending thread