Former Italian President thinks 9/11 was insidejob
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: General World History
Forum Discription: All aspects of world history, especially topics that span across many regions or periods
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22703
Printed Date: 21-May-2024 at 20:02
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Former Italian President thinks 9/11 was insidejob
Posted By: Parnell
Subject: Former Italian President thinks 9/11 was insidejob
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 18:04
|
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/120407_common_knowledge.htm - http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/120407_common_knowledge.htm
Most high profile person to endorse this theory so far, I think..
|
Replies:
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 18:40
|
The question for sceptics now is, why would he lie? ------------- |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 18:55
Why would he 'lie'?
Hmmm, 'Zionist world'? Could it be anti-semitism? |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 19:03
|
I interpret "The Zionist world" as all proponents and supporters of Zionism. Zionism is a geopolitical movement. General Wesley Clarke is also calling for an independent investigation into 911. ------------- |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 20:17
|
Yeah Kenny, why would the former pm lie..
edit: by sceptics i mean those who don't believe in the conspiracy theory!! ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 01:42
|
And I think Bushmen in Africa are responsible for 9/11... seriously guys, this is merely an opinion... albeit not a very good one. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 01:50
|
Yes Pekau, and yours is highly informed. why do they still refuse to commission an independent inquiry if everything went down as they want everyone to think?
------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 05:00
|
Last time I checked they already had a commission, it issued a report and everything. Did you read the last paragraph? This piece is hardly objective. In the penultimate paragraph the former PM is quoted in 2001 as saying: "The mastermind of the attack must have been a “sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel.” Does the former PM really think that the Al Qaeda network doesn't have these abilities? If he does then I have a bridge to sell him. Does anybody else find it strange that the former PM seems to make his implications with out siting any evidence. He is paraphrased as saying "that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies." The only problem is he never backs this claim up. I like how nobody these days can take the simplest explanation, they always have to make it complicated and insert elements that don't exist. To make extraordinary claims like the ones he's making one needs extraordinary evidence. I don't think that he has it, and if he does he hasn't shown it to me, or at least the author of the article hasn't shown it to me. The author clearly wrote this piece for his audience, that is not to give news but to fuel the fires of misguided conspiracy theorists.
PS. I wish people would just let the whole Mossad thing go. There is absolutely no evidence tying them to the events of 9/11. If people want to say it was the CIA that's one thing but leave Israel out of it. How has Israel benefited from this? Conflicts involving Israel have only gotten worse and more numerous (with both sides acting as aggressors). |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 05:01
Why does he not give evidence? |
Posted By: Super Goat (^_^)
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 05:02
| dear lord, now the former italian president is a 911 truther too... |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 06:13
|
Why should he lie? Hmmm... Why should he tell the truth? Especially when the "lie" is incredibly more profitable then the truth! This is a story only for suckers!
If this country is the very devil of the world's worst nightmare, it hardly worked in it's best interest at survival by attacking it's human, economic, societal & military foundations?
I predict, when Mr. Bush is out of the white house, he will write a book and say it was a conspiracy also? He'll stand too rake in $millions from all the gullible people out there! Why not!?
|
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 11:45
|
oh thread, i will returneth later when i doeseth have time ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 14:07
|
That commission was highly flawed and did not address any real issues. If I remember correctly Bush and Cheney wouldn't even interact with it on record. So there should be a proper investigation to determine exactly why and by whom the towers and WTC7, a building which had only a few pieces of flaming debris hit it, were demolished. If they want closure and an end to the now mainstream conspiracy theories then they should conduct such an investigation, unless they have something to lose. ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 14:26
| Here it comes WTC7 I knew it. I bet you believe it was imploded or otherwise demolished by the US. Give it a rest. What questions did it not answer? Why would Bush and Cheney need to interact with the commission on the record? Simply there is no evidence that ties neither Bush nor Cheney to the events of 9/11. I'm not a fan of either but let's stop making them into the world Boogey man/Devil. Things have really worked out well for them. |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 14:37
Actually they conducted two investigations into the collapse of WTC7 one by FEMA and the other by the NIST. The FEMA study claimed that WTC7 went down due to fire caused by falling debris from WTC1 and 2 coupled with a lack of water and water pressure to put out these pockets of fires. The preliminary NIST study states that there was more structural damage then FEMA had originally thought and that the collapse was due to this structural damage since the building's structural integrity was compromised by the falling debris which caused a 10 story gash on the South-side a quarter of the way in to the building. The conspiracy theories aren't mainstream by the way. Just because a bunch of people on the internet have them doesn't make them mainstream popular opinion. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 15:47
|
Typical, seeking to discredit opposing voices with ad hominem. What, you, I or anyone else believes at this moment in time is irrelevant until a truly independent and conclusive investigation into ALL of the events surrounding 911 is conducted. I am sure there are enough credible and qualified individuals with a high sense of moral integrity whom are more than willing to help undertake such an investigation. Such an investigation will put the majority of minds with suspicion around the events to rest - unless of course it implicates certain parties constituent to the corridors of power, which is why I suspect it is so vehemently resisted by some. To expect the world to take the word of proven liars such as Bush, Cheney, Podhoretz and other abhorrent individuals on the issue is frankly ludicrous. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 15:49
Brought it down in a fashion consistent with controlled demolition, the only buildings to ever collapse in such a fashion from fire. That's one of the things that's fishy and needs investigation. And hey, there are plenty of credible, high profile, individuals calling for a proper investigation. ------------- |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 17:31
|
Zagros,
King John is basically correct.
From an article i looked up on the web:
As the North Tower collapsed on Semptember 11, 2001, debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing heavy damage to the south face of the building. The bottom portion of the building's south face was heavily damaged from debris, including: damage to the southwest corner from the 8th to 18th floor, a large vertical gash on the center-bottom extending at least ten floors, and other damage as high as the 18th floor. The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure. The sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system. The sprinkler floor level controls had just a single connection to the sprinkler water riser, and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Loss of power to the fire pump or other damage to the structure would have meant no functioning sprinklers. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers. After the north tower collapsed, some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts. A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building. During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30. At approximately 2:00 p.m., firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors which was a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse. During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building. Around 3:30 pm, given that 7 World Trade Center was unstable and would possibly collapse, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel. At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the collapse. I don't think anyone can cut through the current political animosity at this time for the truth to prevail? Independent investigation or not... people just won't accpet the truth until they are ready for it! |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 19:00
Talk about an ad hominem attack. You mean to tell me that Governor Kean is a liar, not credible, and immoral. Your ascertains about Bush and Cheney being immoral and not credible are true, the only problem here is that they didn't lead the investigations into what happened. By the way what does Podhoretz have to do with this? |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 19:03
Actually none of these reports say anything about demolitions. An objective look at the evidence clearly shows no demolitions. Controlled demolitions take months of preparation and many, many people. How is it that none of the people working in the WTC report seeing any of these preparations? You also haven't answered my previous questions. Will you answer them or are you going to continue to look past them? |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 19:32
|
I am not going to debate the semantics of the events beyond the fact that they are fishy and that is why I have aired my opinion on the need for a full fact based, uninterrupted and apolitical investigation which does not set out to prove one thing or another. From such an investigation a proper analysis can be conducted by impartial experts. ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 19:42
|
Who's debating semantics? I am not. I asked you what Podhoretz had to do with this subject? This isn't semantics you brought up a name that I have never heard in conjunction with this subject and I am interested to know what he has to do with it? I think we have already had such an investigation in fact we are going to have two (the NIST not being out yet, expected in late 2007 or 2008).
Can I then expect not to hear any response from you to my questions? PS. I value your opinion, although I clearly disagree. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 19:59
|
Podhoretz as you may or may not know is the godfather of neoconservatism and has used the events of 911 to do nothing other than spread hate and attempt to set grounds for further international chaos with books such as 'World War IV'. Normally, the antics of such a deranged madman would not merit my attention but the fact that he has been instrtumental in the implementation of the 'Bush doctrine' and has more recently been weighing in for further politcal influence with Giuliani is highly alarming. ------------- |
Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 23:26
I would be interested to see your source for this. Popular mechanics, maybe? The NIST report on the collapse of WTC7 has not yet been published, so there is no authoritative explanation for the collapse of WTC7. However, a few points that your theory of a natural collapse do not explain are: 1) the building was asymmetrically damaged and its columns were asymmetrically placed, and yet it collapsed symmetrically on its own footprint 2) the building collapsed at the rate of free fall down the path of greatest resistance 3) the collapse of the building was anticipated quite accurately (actually a BBC correspondent reported it 20 mins in advance while it was still standing behind her) All these points are consistent with a planned demolition, and contradict the theory of a spontaneous collapse of the building. ------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 00:25
Not that I am trying to say that Israelites had anything to do with 9/11, but they did make some gain out of it. The Americans used this as excuse to launch an invasion to Iraq, which weakened the Arabic capability to threat Israelite security. Plus, more and more nations began to consider the Islamic nations as a possible threat, something Israel could use to justify their strong security... and cover up their crimes against the Arabic people.
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 00:40
It didn't really lessen the threat to Israel. I point you to the escalation of violence that has taken place in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a war with one of its neighbors. And if we are going to start talking about crimes lets talk about Arabic crimes committed against Israelis. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 00:47
Conflict was always there. The attention and tension increased in Israel, and the arm/security industries now have a field day.
As for who's good and who's bad, I don't care. They both committed crimes against humanity. I am tired of pointing fingers... I just hope that put their differences aside as soon as possible. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 00:52
Point 3. Anticipation doesn't prove anything. I can anticipate rain but that doesn't mean it was planned. I can also anticipate somebody being late to an appointment that doesn't mean it was planned. The BBC correspondent could have been observant of the bowing/bulging and also could have been told by fire-fighters about the bulging and their expert opinion regarding the potential of the building falling. The source that Panther is pulling his quote from is wikipedia and the source cited by wikipedia is the interim report issued by the NIST which can be found http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf - here . |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 00:54
| Conflict might have been there and attention might have risen but there has been a clear rise in conflict since 2001. This rise has not helped Israel. By the way you're the one who brought up crimes. |
Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 09:40
You are correct that anticipation does not prove anything. However, it is consistent with planned demolition than a natural collapse. You cannot anticipate the latter the latter with such an accuracy. As Silverstein himself pointed out, the firefighters were ordered to be pulled from the building right before the collapse took place. Such an ability to predict a collapse of a building is unheard of unless you are purposefully demolishing it. If you look at the other buildings surrounding the towers, most of them were far closer and more damaged than WTC7, portions of them collapsed due to the raining debree and fires, yet they still remained partially standing for days, whereas WTC7 collapsed mysteriously. Regarding the BBC correspondent, I don't even think she knew where the building was. She was standing right in front of it, and said it had already collapsed. Obviously she received the information that the building was going to collapse, without really knowing which one it was and she reported it without bothering the verify. Again, this is a clue that somebody knew the building was going to collapse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjySUVOGKA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjySUVOGKA The interim NIST report does not have any conclusion. However, it states that their scenario of the collapse has a very small probability of occurence, and that the collapse requires further study. A full scientific study would consider all scenarios, including the most likekly one from the evidence, which is controlled demolition. ------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA |
Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 09:42
You really lose credibility if you are suggesting that the invasion of Iraq did not benefit the Israeli national interest. The Israeil lobby and the Neocons which are closely aligned with Israel, were the most fervent supporters of the invasion. ------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 14:12
Oh right because invading Iraq really helped to stabilize the region. Another thing it did was decrease the influence of Iran in the region. If you can't tell I'm being sarcastic. Are you serious? The region has become more unstable with each day of the US occupation. Also it is important to note that with the regime of Saddam gone there is now a power vacuum in the region, which Iran is clearly filling. Now explain to me how this helps Israel? |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 14:26
"As Silverstein himself pointed out, the firefighters were ordered to be pulled from the building right before the collapse took place. Such an ability to predict a collapse of a building is unheard of unless you are purposefully demolishing it." This just isn't true, clearly you don't know about fire-fighting. When a house or building is on fire the structure is weakened, to what degree depends on the material used to build the structure. When a structure become sufficiently weakened it starts to wobble (or otherwise show its precarious state by other forms of movement). When this happens a firefighter on the ground, normally the one in charge, makes the decision to pull the firefighters out of the structure because it is unsafe. Upon doing this sometimes the structure collapses. Another way of thinking about it is; if you burn a candle unevenly it leaves one side much taller than the other. When the burning candle reaches such a point the unburned side collapses in on itself. This is done by gravity not a controlled demolition. By the way how does all the evidence point to a controlled demolition? Controlled demolitions take months of preparation as well as many people to carry out said preparations. And yet somehow nobody has reported every seeing people carrying out these preparations. BgTurk, come on, I've heard these claims from you in other threads and you always disregard the evidence of the counter-argument. Please think about it objectively, and actually take the time to understand what I am saying. PS. the NIST report doesn't have any hard conclusions because it is a preliminary report and not a final one. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 14:30
|
A better question would be, where the hell was the USAF. In other countries if a plane goes off the flight plane, aircraft are sortied. I would like to know why this did not happen on 9-11. Not that I am a conspiracy theorist. But I do believe that need explanation. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 14:48
|
Sparten, as far as i am aware the USAF was busy conducting some sort of exercise ont he say and hours of the incidents. During the 7/7 bombings in London the security services were tied up with some sort of exercise too.
------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 14:48
| I believe, Sparten, that the NORAD system didn't take it seriously enough and didn't scramble jets out in time. Keep in mind that the planes that were involved took off from Logan airport in Boston (two that hit the towers) and the one the went down in PA took off from Newark International Airport in NJ. A flight Boston to New York is only around 30mins or so of air time. |
Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 16:43
If they can predict a collapse so accurately, then how did they fail to do it with the first two trade centers? If they had asked the firefighters to evacuate as they did with WTC7 they could have saved many lives.
Buildings collapsing due to gravity (e.g. during the earthquake in Turkey), usually tilt and collapse to the side, not right through themselves on their own footprint. Even with your candle example, the unburned part does not just fall into itself, it falls to the side.
Placing explosives in that building would have indeed been a very difficult process, but not an impossible one. That nobody has reported seeing people carry out those preparations does not prove that they did not actually occur. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And you do not find it at least a little strange that 6 years after the events NIST still has not published its report on the collapse of WTC7? A collapse of a skyscraper due to fire is a unique event in the history of mankind, and will undoubtedly have great impact on civil engineering and the design of skyscrapers. That NIST, FEMA and the US government in general are so blatantly underfunding and ignroing, in some cases going as far as impeding the investigation of this important event is not the least bit suspicious to you? ------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA |
Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 16:51
The plane flying towards the pentagon was in the air for at least an hour. Supersonic jets could have intercepted and neutralized it within minutes. However, as transportation secretary Minetta testified before the 9-11 commission, Dick Cheney explicitly asked for the plane not to be brought down. http://youtube.com/watch?v=GO-9LQDFE2Y - http://youtube.com/watch?v=GO-9LQDFE2Y ------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA |
Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 17:07
As America invaded Iraq, Israel essentially achieved its objective of destroying one of its traditional enemies without its soldiers even lifting a figure. A weak, unstable, and fractioned Iraq from an Israeli perspective is much better than a strong and unified one, and that is also why Israel supports the Kurdish separatists in the North of the country. ------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 17:39
|
And the spread of chaos and in fighting amongst Israel's adjacent Muslims is to its great advantage too since all of their time will be consumed vying for power instead of focusing on the Palestinian and Israeli issue. This means that Isrel can resolve the issue on its terms and its terms alone. It's little wonder that they are also stopping at nothing to escalate the crisis to engulf Iran. ------------- |
Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 17:54
Given that Israel's and Iran's traditional enemies are the Arabs, it would seem to me that geopolitically it would make sense for those two countries to be allies. What motivates the Iranian animosity towards Israel? Is it the close ties to the Americans and their past support for the Shah? ------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 18:03
|
Iran's government is religious and pan-Islamic, that's why and i do beleive that in Islam, the Ummah cannot allow for lost territory to stay in the hands of non-Muslims. That is why Ahmadinejad, religious nut, keeps going on about the zionist regime vanishing from Jerusalem and the occupied territories. Personally I don't see any geopolitical gain in materially supporting the Palestinians or even Hezbollah. So the IRI is not Machiavellian but Islamic. Support for Israel during the Shah's period was not welcome, just as support today for the Palestinians is not welcome, amongst the majority. ------------- |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 18:13
|
Haha, this again.
1) so what? If I asymmetrically damage a Jenga tower it still might fall "symmetrically". I assume you have vast empirical data supporting the statement that asymmetrical damage always yield "symmetrical" drops, which you are willing to share with us? 2) What do you mean with "path of greatest resistance"? Who made the measurements that it collapsed at the rate of free fall? Better yet, how was those measurements conducted? Also, what are the quantiative measurements? How many other examples with collapsing buildings have it been compared to? 3) it's not that difficult to predict a building to collapse - especially not since you had two buildings collapsing just before it's not take the cautious way and suspect it's going to happen again.
I totally disagree, at least until some hard evidence has been shown (for example, answer my questions). Disclaimer: I use "" around symmetry, since it's an incredibly unscientific way to use the word. |
Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 18:54
My assertion is that building which are asymmetrically damaged would not collapse symmetrically down the vertical line. This is especially true for skyscrapers whose center of mass is very high. You would expect them to tilt in the direction of the damage and topple over rather than going straight down.
The path of greatest resistance is the vertical line along which the collapsing debree faces the resistance and inertia of the undamaged floors directly underneath. As for measuring the acceleration, anybody who knows the height of the building and time of it took to collapse can confirm that it fell at the rate of free fall. WTC7 was a 47 storey building and it took approximately 6-7 seconds to collapse. With basic physics (a = 2*h/t^2) and a calculator, you can easily figure out that this means the building collapsed at an acceleration close to g. Under normal conditions the floors below would arrest the collapse, and the acceleration would be substantially lower than g. But the building collapsed as if those floors were never there, consistent with controlled demolition.
It is one thing to say a building may collapse, another to predict the collapse of the building 20 minutes before it actually happens.
Unless there is a complete and impartial investigation, I don't think we will ever know what exactly happened. ------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 19:19
Why? What empirical evidence do you have on that? If the remaining supports are not strong enough to support the weight above them alone, they will snap, making the building go straight down anyway. We're talking about complex buildings here, that cannot be modelled as a solid.
What I meant was who and how were the measurements made? To put it precisely: how was the actual fall time calculated? And by whom?
So what was exactly the words of the reporter? "This building is going to collapse in 20 minutes and 6...5...4 seconds!" Or did she say "There is fear that this building might also collapse, just like the two other towers!" The difference is enourmous. |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 19:43
|
Stybiorn, do you actually know the facts of the BBC report, or how the fall was calculated..? Or are you just arguing for the sake of it?
The actual fall time calculation is easy, the building was filmed collasping at several angles. It's not hard to count to ten.
Watch this short video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiNK-cWt7DY - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiNK-cWt7DY
Here is the BBC news report itself. I would advise you to watch it, before you try to guess what was actually said, because that is just ridiculous. It is imperitive to look at both perspectives and actually know the facts before attempting to rubbish others assertions on the topic.
BBC report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s&feature=related
How about the CNN report, which predicted the collaspe an hour early as well..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VerKCCwORMM&mode=related&search - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VerKCCwORMM&mode=related&search =
Just out of curiousity, have you actually watched loosechange??
------------- |
Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 20:08
The floors below were strong enough to support the building for 50 years, why should they suddenly fail? You could probably argue that the kinetic energy of the collapsing floors above was so great that the ability of the floors below to arrest the motion was negligible and that they therefore did have only a negligible effect on the rate of collapse. However, this theory has not been quantified with serious calculations. Quite to the contrary, I cam across an article where the building was modeled as a series of static floors, and the collapse starts progressing down from the damaged floors by accelerating each floor below which is initially assumed at rest (the so called pancake theory). The model results in a fall time which is at least twice as big as the one that was observed. The only way the building can fall so fast is if all the supporting columns were compromised globally all over the building at once. How can this happen? I can only think of one way.
The actual time is calculated as the time it takes for the top floor of the building to reach the ground. There are at least three video of WTC7's collapse. Anybody can calculate the time. But I would refer you to the work of Prof. Steven Jones.
She said the building had already collapsed even though it stood right behind her. You can easily recognize WTC7 or the Solomon building as it is also called if you are familiar with the NYC skyline. Here is the report in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjySUVOGKA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjySUVOGKA Somebody obviously was planning the collapse of the building, and made a premature press release to the BBC. Imagine if that woman was not cut off, and we actually saw wtc7 collapse behind her on live television. How would she explain her foreknowledge of the collapse? What would you have thought? ------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA |
Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 20:13
But it is hard to do it properly. For example, bgturk's rather inexact number "6-7 seconds", would either yield an average acceleration below or above the gravitational acceleration. From your video, there is no way whatsoever to make a good measurement (not even bringing up the issue of frame rate!). I'm simply interested in these things: who and how was the measurement made? Spelling it out: was it made by some conspiracy nutters or an objective source? Which photage was use? When was the clock stopped and turned of? How was frame rate included in the calculations? Was it done once? Averaged? It's an incredibly strong thing to claim this. Therefore you are also obviously expected to provide hard evidence. Counting to ten watching a Conspiracy! show does not count as hard evidence.
You think a program which gets it's funding for making conspiracy theories is a credible source?
I didn't "try to guess". I was asking a question. Thanks for providing the answer - even if it wasn't in a very gentlemanry manner. After seeing the videos, I can only conclude the answer is the second alternative: "the building is on fire" and "may collapse". That's a pretty weak point to use as argument for a planned demolition. Last week, there were speculations if a listing cruise ship in the Antarctic would sink ("the ship may sink"). The ship did eventually sink, so with the same logic used above, one could also conclude that this meant the CIA had planted the ship with explosives and leaked information - because there would be no way the news agencies could make so accurate predictions otherwise!
I do not know what it is. |
Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 20:26
I referred you to Prof. Jones. Actually calculating the rate of fall of wtc7 was one of the assignments he gave to his students in a freshman physics course he taught. Most of them reached the same result independently. Of course there is an error involved in calculating the exact time of the fall due to the quality of the video, and the dust that blocks the line of site. A proper measurement would take that error into consideration and propagate it through all the calculations. But in any case you will still get a an acceleration which is sufficiently close to the rate of free fall.
The videos of the collapse are part of the official media archives of that day.I hope you will not go as far as denying their authenticity. ------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 20:29
|
http://www.loosechange911.com - www.loosechange911.com Check it out. It is available to download, and you can also watch it on google video. here's the link:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501 - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501
I'm not saying it is definitve, but is definitely worth a watch.
------------- |
Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 20:37
|
In my humble opinion Loose Change is quite amateurish. Maybe the final version is better, but the previous versions I watched actually make some assertions that are demonstrably wrong or are on a very shaky ground at the very least. I personally prefer Prof. Steve Jones lectures at various universities that can also be found on youtube and google video. A documentary that I would recommend as a good introduction to the government coverup is 9-11 Press for Truth: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481 - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481 Very professionally done. ------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 20:41
| bgturk, if a car is on fire and I notice that it is leaking fuel and say "that car is going to explode if somebody doesn't put out that fire" or "that car might blow up." Does that mean that the destruction of the car in question mean that it was a controlled demolition? What some of the responders here are failing to realize is that the floors weren't just static nor was the supporting structure un-compromised. Just because something falls in a way that is rare doesn't mean that it is unnatural. That is to say if something falls 9/10 times one way and the other 1/10 times in a completely different way then that one out of ten can still be a natural fall. As I sit here writing this response I am also looking at the bookcase that holds my fish-tank. The weight of the fish-tank is such that it has bowed the very top of the bookcase causing the weight-baring sides to push out and make the bookcase ever more unstable. If I were to leave the fish tank on my bookcase eventually the part holding my fish-tank would fall (in on itself) and case the shelf directly below to do the same. At the same time the load-bearing sides would push out and fall as well. (Consequently, for those of you who care, I have moved my fish tank). I am not saying that this is what happened with any of the WTC towers but that this is a possibility. |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 21:34
|
The fact that nobody reported any of the preparations isn't evidence that it happened. In fact the fact that there has been no evidence alleging any sort of preparations for a demolition would lead most objective people to the conclusion that there were not preparations ergo it didn't happen. Just because there is an absence of evidence doesn't mean that something happened. In fact it leads to the conclusion that it didn't happen. The point of bringing up the lack of reporting of evidence is not to say that the absence of evidence proves it didn't happen. Rather the point is to show that there is so much work that goes into these preparations and so many people that go into the execution of these preparations that there is no way that somebody would not come forward. This logically leads to the conclusion that these preparations and placement of explosives for a controlled demolition didn't take place. Could you explain how the lack of evidence proving preparations for a controlled demolition proves that a controlled demolition took place?
Next time you go to the woods why don't you pick up four twigs and put them in the ground in a square and place your hand on top of them. Push down. What happens? If the ground holds, the four twigs will snap and and your hand will go straight down. Why is this not a possible scenario for the WTC towers? They were essentially a square foundation, which was severely damaged by the fire and burning fuel from the crashed plane. When some 20 stories come crashing down on top how then is it not possible that the falling stories fell on top of the remaining stories and subsequently caused them to come crashing down on top of one another? |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 22:44
|
King John, with repect, you ca give as many analogies as you want, concerning fish tanks, cars, twigs etc, but they mean absolutely nothing when used as part of an argument. They neither prove nor demonstrate, only empirical facts can do that. ------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 23:12
| So you're not going to answer the questions I pose? By the way analogies do help with arguments, the fish tank and twig analogies demonstrate that structures can collapse on themselves. These comments were made in response to bgturk's comments that structures don't collapse in on themselves unless there is a controlled demolition of some sort. Dolphin, with respect, I have provided more documentation then the former Italian PM did in the article at the beginning of this thread. Why don't you go back and read over what I have posted? The only facts provided in this thread have been by the sources that have been provided by Styrbiorn, Myself, and Panther. Why is it that you don't ask conspiracy theorists for "empirical facts?" |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 23:16
|
Why did the terrorists bother to fly planes into the world trade center if they were strung up with dynamite anyway, why didn't the dynamite ignite sooner (at least locally where the planes hit) because of the fires. Also, if there was a conspiracy and the bbc reporter knew about it, why did she (and all her colleagues) sit on the story. Breaking that story would be the pinnacle of any journalist's career. Such a story would surely garner a Pulitzer for the Journalist(s) who broke the story.
Also, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it would have involved hundreds of people (to wire the wtc w/dynamite at least). if that did happen, why would not ONE person, racked with guilt have come forward? After all the people doing it would have been human and don't want to see their countrymen die. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 23:20
|
With all due respect, those were some pretty lame analogies. A massive concrete, glass and steel building can not be compared to a pile of twigs or a fish tank. You can only compare buildings with buildings. Find another instance of a building collapsing on its footprint from fire - a steel and concrete building if you wish to make a valid analogy. ------------- |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 23:23
|
Ah, the only facts presented were from the three contributers that all share the same opinion on the topic..?! Selective, to say the least, and undoubtedly biased. Numerous others have contributed facts to the discussion, i'd advise you read them again. As I have noted, some conspiracy theory 'facts' are being discounted outright just because they are part of a conspiracy theory. Look beyond the tag, (in this case a derogatory one used to discredit the argument) and look at the actual evidence. From there, a balanced conclusion can be drawn.
The use of analogies is widely accepted as demonstative, but only as a very basic representation of an idea. An analogy can never be used to actually prove something, it can only suggest it. So, no matter how many analogies are provided, they will never hold any ground when it comes to finding the truth about the actual topic being discussed. That is why I do not value them.
------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 23:39
| I have read the other posts and clearly I have heard (rather read) no facts that demonstrate the potential of a controlled demolition. I have never used the analogies to prove anything merely suggest that certain things are possible. Value them or don't I don't care. My question to you still holds. Why have you not asked for empirical evidence from the conspiracy theorists who claim that the collapse was a controlled demolition. Other than BgTurk who cited Prof. Steven Jones, who has accademic credibility issues if you believe some of his peers, nobody has cited a source for their claims. Providing video of reporters reporting information that was relayed to them by people on the scene is not evidence of a conspiracy like some would have you believe. These reports aren't empirical facts. Commission reports with physical explanations would be empirical facts. |
Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2007 at 00:06
|
Yeah, a Commision report would be nice. Pity, that 6 years on, we're still waiting then... And I never claimed to have provided evidence, I just provided links. If you want, I can pull about ten sources out of the wonderful interhat now, but I don't think it will add anything at this juncture.
------------- |
Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2007 at 01:43
| We've already had one commission report and then after that one we're having a second one that is supposed to come out very soon. The second one mind you was only commissioned after the first one in 2004. |
Posted By: Panther
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2007 at 16:19
bgturk, first off... my apologies in a late response, i have not been feeling well lately. Perhaps this post may not be as coherent as i like it to be, but i will try?
Now, King John is again correct... about where i got my original source. Due to being sick, i didn't feel like putting a whole of effort into even more research. Also, Popular Mechanics in itself is also a very reputable magazine. Their effort at debunking just a few of the literally thousands of conspiracy theories out there, shouldn't distract a person from any of the few facts as presented by them, primarily because it doesn't play into the "so called" conspiracy theory of a government planned demoloition of WTC7.
The NIST report, i believe, is to be known very shortly. However, i doubt whether it will accomplish any of it's goals of laying to rest all the conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse. This did happen after all, under Mr. Bush's watch. So, IMHO, there is way too much political vindictiveness out there, for this too simply go away... No matter how many impartial investigation are conducted about this subject!?
Now i would prefer to focus on just one thing, regarding the initial investigations, as any others that will follow, will also be conducted by those with the same wide spread knowledge of techncal expertise in structural engineering. I prefer not to get distracted, by slamming those who have made it their career in making sure what they put up, won't be automatically coming down anytime soon! IOW... they are not so stupid as to put their credibility at stake, just in order too further any government conspiracy of denying the truth to the public about that very dark day! Thus... the next paragraph focuses on the initial investigators and not just their findings.
Now, the inital investigation conducted under one Shyam Sunder, and with the help from in-house technical expertise, as well as help from outside private sources from the likes of (Also from wikipedia): The American Society of Civil Engineers, The Society of Fire Protection Engineers, The National Fire Protection Association, The American Institute of Steel Construction, The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and finally... The Structural Engineers Association of New York! All these organisations, all that engineering expertise... means even just one of their engineers has a much more better understanding of structural engineering in their little pinky, then all the conspircay theorists do in the entire world, regarding their "so called" technical experience in structural engineering! I find it continuously baffling to my mind, that their or any other further subsequent findings "will be" immediately discarded as if... they were in the pay of some government conspiracy of denying the truth to the public of their findings?
Again, for them to do so, like this thread is automatically assuming of them... discredits all their expertise in the matter! In essence... they have everything to gain by being initially impartial all along. Instead of getting themseleves wrapped up in just another conspiracy! That is certainly not good for their business, of their sound engineering techniques... their bread and butter of the public's trust!
My question is... who would you guy's prefer in investigating the collapse of WTC7? Al Qaeda's engineer's? Mr. Soros's paid for engineer's? How about taking the word of Mr. Chomsky... that there was a government planned implosion? Or what about code pink's engineer's? What happens if these guy's came out tomorrow and said there was no government planned implosion? That it in fact happened as already stated? I think there will be plenty of disappointed people, who would automatically assume and label them as being in pay of the US government or the CIA?
In short... i don't think any answer about the collapse will satisfy anyones curiousity anytime soon? Perhaps in fifty or... a hundred years time, when we all are dead and gone and it is left to those without an axe to grind against any politcal establishment, by taking up the burden of answering the question?
Then again what do i know... there are still some who are questioning the sinking of the "Maine"? **Sigh**
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2007 at 16:24
Reading this again, I feel compelled to clarify. Iran's traditional enemies are teh Russians, the Ottmans (Turkey) and Britain. There has never been any war prior to 1980 with Arabs since the fall of the Sassanids. ------------- |
Posted By: bgturk
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 11:01
|
Arabs were a part of the Ottoman Empire. After its collapse one would think that in Mesopotamia the rivalry between the Ottomans and the Persians would be inherited by the Arabs. ------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJHmQvFNydA |