How has the world changed since the 9/11 attacks?

[Curt 1]

Check this out and some of the comments in this thread. I'm going to submit my own, see if they post it.

 

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=3631&&&edition=2&ttl=20060908094201

 

-------

 

Anyone know by the way where I can see the original live broadcasts from that morning - ie. as it happened.

[Ocean11 0]

It seems a good few Americans are in doubt about who did 9/11, while some other people are doing their level best to get some lawfulness back into their country. These are positive developments.

[eskimobasecamp 0]

there's a rather well written cover article in this weeks Economist (2 - 8 sept) on this very topic

[soubriquet 0]

There's an interesting report here

 

It seems that the leader of "Scholars for truth" is "convinced that Jesus was wandering through ancient Mexico around AD 600, paying calls on various Mayan villagers. He has published "evidence" that the Mayans were well aware of the "resurrected Lord" centuries before the Spanish priests crossed the Atlantic and gave them the Good News."

 

Also: "for the past 10 years, Professor Jones has also been trying to sell Third World countries a solar funnel cooker based on the highly disputed scientific theory of cold fusion"

 

"Professor" in a US university is what most people call "lecturer". Utah University may be known to some as the cradle of intellectual excellence, but not to me.

[misorano 1]

 Quote:

Most of them aren't scientists but instructors in the liberal arts at second-rate colleges who have spent much of their careers tilting at various windmills. Professor James Fetzer of Minnesota, for example, thinks that JFK was killed by several shooters and that the moon landing in 1969 may have been a hoax.

Written by a professor of English???

C'mon Soub, this guy is attacking the messenger here.

One thing that would clear up a lot would be the release of the security tapes around the Pentagon. Can't see any reason why not (We've all seen videos of the WTC crashes, it can't be any worse than that)

[Ocean11 0]

That's not a 'report' soubs, that's a hatchet job opinion piece. It contains all the rhetorical sallies that are becoming very familiar in this sort of piece. I like the way they always dismiss the Internet as a source of valuable information, in spite of the fact that their article uses the very same media.

 

And as you can see for yourself (using that source for the paranoid, the Internet), Shelden is a liar. Jone's solar funnel cooker has got nothing to do with cold fusion. The design works, and they are being used around the world (I will use them at my new place).

 

Obviously 9/11 hasn't done anything for people's honesty or logic.

[ponch 0]

"9/11 hasn't done anything for people's honesty or logic"

 

I'd say anything it has made the situation worse.

[soubriquet 0]

I'll concede that it's opinion, nothing more.

 

I wonder if Jones knows the difference between a girder and a joist? Girder wrote Faust and Joist wrote Ulysses.

 

More important is the distinction between a beam and a truss. Many buildings use the former, the twin towers the latter.

[Ocean11 0]

No good wondering soubs. Instead of lapping up transparent lies in newspapers, you could look at Jones' evidence and find out if he knows the difference you've set for him, then judge the evidence based on its merits, not on who Jones is, or what other fantastic ideas he might entertain. You know, in a fair-minded fashion, like. As a judge of intellectual excellence and all.

[soubriquet 0]

I have read the FEMA report on the twin towers, several reports on fires in steel framed buildings, as well as several of the links you have posted. None of these can be summarised as lies in newspapers.

 

The Cardington test and powerpoint are very interesting, because they did some properly instrumented testing of an office space using wood equivalent fire load of a typical office. The unprotected beams reached 1088 C in 57 minutes, well above the temperature of mechanical failure.

 

We know that the twin towers received significant structural damage from the aircraft imapacts, but survived. It is an unreasonable assumption to presume that the fire protection coatings of the internal structural steel would have survived intact having been blasted by 150 tonnes of shredded aluminium, two engines and the landing gear travelling at 800 kph.

 

We also know that the uncontrolled fires burned for about an hour over several floors, so it's a reasonable assumption that any unprotected structure within, including supporting columns and floor trusses would have likely been heated beyond the point of failure.

 

My opinion is that the twin towers would have survived the aircraft strike without the fires, and could have survived the fires without the damage from the imapact, but sould not survive both.

 

I have judged the evidence as best as I can based on its merits, not on who Jones is, or what other fantastic ideas he might entertain. I have tried to do it in a fair-minded fashion, like. As a judge of intellectual excellence and all.

[misorano 1]

Soub:

I thought the buildings were designed to survive a 707 strike. Such an design would have had to take into account fire damage as it is inevitable that a plane hitting a building will create a fire.

Also as the planes did not hit smack bang n the middle, you would assume that the structural damage was more on certain parts of building. This should mean that the building should topple over, rather than falling at almost free fall speed into its own footprint.

 

2 other problems are the concrete turing from a solid into a fine dust rather than the blocks you would expect, and more tellingly WTC7 which was not hit by a plane by collapsed hours later, again directly into it's own footprint.

 

The only 3 steel framed high rise buildings ever to collapse from fire damage happened within 8-9 hours of each other on Sept 11.

 

I honestly don't have a clue what happened, but there seem to be so many strange unanswered questions. And with the Bush track record for lying to the public it is difficult to take anything he has something to do with at face value.

 

Have you seen any of the documentaries about the Bush family? Their connections to the banking, oil, and intelligence industries are alarming.

[Ocean11 0]

Have you got a test to show how fast or how slowly a fire damaged steel building would collapse if a few floors gave way? That'd be the next thing to look at.

[Ocean11 0]

Here\'s one way the world has changed - more Americans have now died as a result of Bush's 'response' to 9/11 than died on 9/11.

 

 Quote:

The comparison between fatalities in the war on terror and 9/11 was drawn last month by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

 

"It's now almost five years since September 11, 2001," Pace said. "And the number of young men and women in our armed forces who have sacrificed their lives that we might live in freedom is approaching the number of Americans who were murdered on 9/11 in New York, in Washington, D.C., and in Pennsylvania."

They might need to think about bringing their freedom perimeter in just a bit - say, to the borders of their country where it would have made all the difference on 9/11 (if you believe the official story anyway). The fact that the US government has now racked up a death toll of its own people larger than the 9/11 toll should be evidence enough that it's quite happy to sacrifice large numbers of Americans...

[yodel 0]

I saw that this morning, it's a very sad and embarrassing statistic. And what number will that rise to?

[Curt 1]

 Quote:

US President George W Bush has said the fight against terror is a "struggle for civilisation", in a speech marking five years since the 11 September attacks. Addressing the nation from the Oval Office, Mr Bush called for a unified country to "meet the test of history".

A stuggle for civilisation, for sure.

[Goemon 0]

 

(make sure you wipe the mud and blood of your shoes)

[Ocean11 0]

He's stepping on the US flag... Surely he isn't fit to be president.

[damian 0]

That speech by Bush is a bit scary. It makes quite clear to me that he is prodding the bee hive until most moderate people are left with no choice but to support the 'war on terror'. The WOT is a construct. Pretty soon, the US are going to convince us that we have no choice but to wipe out any hint of Islam radicalism by attacking directly a few more countries in the middle east that are already obviously being fashioned as our common enemy. Bush wanted the war in Iraq to go badly and importantly to create more terrorism. 2,600 US soldiers over a few years is small change in the big scheme of strategy and resources. Bush is being 100% honest when he talks about the need for all generations of Americans to pull together in the common struggle for civilisation. He plans to kill off the Middle East and Islamic opposition to the American way once and for all, and that is an undertaking of world war proportions. I think you will find that most western people are scared shitless of Islam and at the most basic level would, if forced, agree that:

 

- A western war against Arabs and Islamic nations is not as bad as war between western nations.

- If the western world was to drop any care for Christianity, it would be a massive strategic advantage to the Islamic world.

 

The upshot: more War and more God.

 

I support neither but can totally understand why most people do.

[Ocean11 0]

But then polls suggest that 2/3rds of Americans don't support him, and at least 1/3rd don't agree with his WOT either, which are significant proportions... His speech is scary because he has time left to wreck things further, so let's hope those signficant numbers of Americans work to restrain him.

[damian 0]

I hope you are right. But I would like to know why 2/3rd don't support him and why 1/3rd do not support his WOT.

 

Is it because they don't agree with his ethos and motivation? Or is it because they are unhappy with his management of what he promised? Perhaps they are asking why the threat still exists? Why has the war not been conclusively won yet?! The American's just might demand someone that has the balls and the ability to get it done, especially if the air remains consistently ripe with the fear of Islamic Terrorist. Even the word Islam sounds scary to many people. I myself am wary of Islam, after all, you don't see many Islamic snowboarders so I can only surmise that a world of Islam would be a world of no fun on the slopes.

 

A lot of Israelis were unhappy with Omelet after his management of the recent war in Lebanon. It didn't take much reading between the lines to see that they were dissatisfied with the cost vs the result. They were not unhappy with the war per se.

[misorano 1]

If the democrats get a majority in the house or senate in the mid term elections, will this reign him in?

 

5 years on and the if we ask ourselves who has benefitted from the WOT, it is not a pretty answer.

 

This is a good site.

[misorano 1]

I've been watching a CBS documentary about 9/11. Fairly good show. I didn't know that Bush was out of contact with Washington for most of the day due to communication problems with Airforce 1.

 

Seems Chaney was calling most of the shots, which is why the testified together to the 9/11 commission.

 

After seeing several of these 5th anniversary documentaries, I'm left with the feeling that Al Qaeda did the deeds, but that they we allowed to get away with it to pursue Rumsfeld's, Chaney's, Wolfivichs plans for the new American century.

 

There is plenty of evidence that they knew an attack of this nature was about to happen. Yet is served their own agenda to let it go ahead.

[Ocean11 0]

LIHOPper eh?

[misorano 1]

LIHOPper???

 

Let it Happen ________?

[Ocean11 0]

... on purpose.

 

As opposed to MIHOP. Made it Happen ...

 

As David Shayler points out, with the LIHOP theory there are problems with the question of control - what's to stop the operatives changing their targets halfway through?

 

And LIHOP doesn't explain the architectural anomalies of that day.

 

Not that I have any theory of my own - only lots of unanswered questions.