Nihilist Left brings progressives into disrepute
Nick Dyrenfurth From: The Australian May 10, 2011

LAST week the world learned of the death of a misogynistic, homophobic, racist mass murderer who supported a theocratic, neo-fascist ideology posing as a liberation movement. In Washington and at New York's September 11 Ground Zero, spontaneous crowds cheered in the streets upon the announcement of Osama bin Laden's long-overdue demise.

Most of the world's population, Muslim and non-Muslim, greeted the news in a more sober fashion. But the overwhelming majority must surely have agreed with the man who authorised bin Laden's death, US President Barack Obama: justice had been done.

To be sure, bin Laden was opposed to every tenet of modern progressive politics; secular democracy, representative government, a hatred of feudal or class-based inequity, equality of the sexes, anti-racism and the core values of the Enlightenment itself.

No self-respecting social democrat mourned his death. And yet, had one's daily reading habits been confined to sections of so-called "progressive" opinion, bin Laden's death was a matter of profound regret. The extra-judicial killing was a denial of due process, celebrity lawyer Geoffrey Robertson protested, oblivious to the impossibility of capturing or trying bin Laden. "[It's] hard to celebrate one more corpse," opined Jeff Sparrow, a devotee of the violent Bolshevik thug, Leon Trotsky, on ABC's The Drum. Not to be outdone, Crikey's Hunter S Thompson-wannabe, Guy Rundle, downplayed bin Laden's crimes claiming that: "Morally speaking, 9/11 was no worse than a B-52 run over Vietnam."

You don't have to believe that American engagement in Indochina during the 1960s and 70s was foolhardy or that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was likewise ill-judged, as the present writer does, to find Rundle's commentary nonsensical. Then again this is a man who has penned such thoughtful treatises as "Zionists and Nazis Connected. Discuss."

Perhaps the most disturbing local contribution came from another Drum regular, anti-Israel activist Antony Loewenstein, who announced that "the West has much to learn". Bin Laden's "[terrorist] tactics were abhorrent and failed to attract huge numbers of followers" Loewenstein surmised, nonetheless the West's subjugation of Muslims meant that the "arguments for his organisation's force have only strengthened since 9/11".

In other words, Osama was a nasty piece of work but fighting the good fight against imperialist crusaders. (Never mind that the majority of al-Qa'ida's victims have been Muslim.) Loewenstein concluded by offering a paean of praise: "Bin Laden died a man who profoundly changed the landscape of the world."

Well, yes, he certainly changed Lower Manhattan's landscape.

If any further evidence were required to show that a segment of the 21st century Western Left has completely lost the plot and plumbed the deepest, darkest depths of moral nihilism and cultural relativism, the contributions of these so-called "progressive" thinkers is conclusive proof. As British academic-cum-blogger Norman Geras put it this week: "In the demise of a reactionary murdering theocrat they are unable to see and plainly articulate the sense of anything good".

As has been well-documented, social democratic parties are in serious decline across the West.

In part, their woes are the perverse result, as the late Tony Judt put it, of their success in conquering mass poverty and material deprivation, and other epic 20th century struggles against inequality and discrimination.

Indeed, the survival of liberal democracy in the face of the twin totalitarian threats of fascism and communism owed much to the efforts of social democrats.

Today, however, noisy elements on the far Left - think Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and our local scribblers - seem to believe that Western-style democracy is in fact the real enemy.

With monotonous regularity they excuse bin Laden and his fellow Jihadis' death-cult or rationalise Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vile anti-Semitism, instead preferring to blame the US and Israel for all the woes of the world, including partial responsibility for the September 11 atrocities.

There are of course brave souls on the Left who have challenged the ostensible status quo. One thinks here of Geras and his fellow Euston Manifesto signatories. Recently a local player emerged to put a similar case.

In his maiden speech to NSW parliament last year Labor MLC Luke Foley, from the party's Left, argued that social democrats must confront the newest "totalitarian movement of the far Right" just as they successfully opposed fascism. "This global Islamist movement is misogynist, racist and homophobic [and] based on an utter perversion of the Islamic faith.

"Too many progressives are silent about this," Foley insisted, "or worse, deny this."

It is hard to disagree with the crux of Foley's argument. And yet if I must quibble with his analysis and that of Geras et al, it is their designation of the apologists for radical Islam, as "Left", an association that is arguably harming the electoral viability of centre-left parties across the globe. For they are no such thing.

It is high time these values-free misfits received a new appellation.

Practically speaking, they oppose mainstream Left thinking on virtually every subject. Amazingly they can see no tangible difference between a theocracy and a democracy nor denounce Islamic fundamentalism in unequivocal terms. To my mind, they should be known for what they are: nihilists.

So let them rail against liberal democracy and chant: "We are all Hezbollah" from the rooftops but do not besmirch the good name of others by deeming themselves Left. No, let them stand with like-minded nihilists, Jew-haters and other enemies of social democracy, including a recently deceased jihadist unlikely to be enjoying a judenrein paradise of virgins. On behalf of the sane Left, good riddance to the lot of them.

Nick Dyrenfurth co-edited All That's Left: What Labor Should Stand For.

Great Post
Thanks

Soren wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 9:03am:

Today, however, noisy elements on the far Left - think Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and our local scribblers

I consider myself a fairly well-read educated guy able to make up on my own mind on issues and would say my views are Right in nature a lot of the time.

But I was just trying to thing if I have EVER agreed with these two on ANYTHING.

Nothing springs to mind.

would any of the like him and his followers in their backyards I wonder??..to see someone sitting there watching and plotting and planning his next hate filled  revenge..was stomach turning..yet they feel he was a worthwhile citizen of the world..a good man..

well what annoys me most is that these sympathisers get so much milage out of this where Germaine she is usually out they telling us we are wrong... he was all good.

Liberal democracy has lead us to dictatorship of the bourgeois, we are running countries by and for the upper-class, the bankers and corporations who are walking all over the law and the rights of individuals enshrined in law.  When every budget has become an exercise in outsourcing of responsibility from the ruling class onto the poor its time for change. 8-)

To try and simplify the views of a man like Noam Chomsky, down to a level where the writer of the article puts him on a plane with Pilger, is enough to tell me that this guy is just one more who does not like admitting that he has no greater claim to declaring what is moral, and what is not, than those he accuses of nihilism.

To describe the killing of Bin Laden as "justice", is not a position  I would expect from those wishing to claim any moral high ground, over fundamentalist Islam.
His death was a revenge killing, and in that regard, puts those who ordered it on very shaky ground when wishing to denounce as barbaric the behaviour of fundamentalists who have honour killings as a part of their core beliefs.

While I do not mourn bin Laden's death, I do mourn for our sense of justice, because the fact that we so easily accept the meting out of such summary execution, as justice, is a diminution of our own values.

It is an easy thing to point out the many faults of people like Bin Laden, and to highlight the moral and ethical flaws in his beliefs, but unless we also show the same vigour in exposing the injustices and wrongs in our own system, then we should not be making rash claims of being alone, in holding some, superior, moral imperative, which allows us to make moral judgements upon others while, characterising any criticism of ourselves as morally nihilistic, for that is pure hubris.

We of the west must accept responsibility for our part in this escalating enmity between Islam and the west, and also accept our part in the rise of people like Bin Laden, and to try and characterise his position as growing from a purely religious, rather than political, ideology, are ignoring the facts of our recent past, and assigning labels like nihilist to people honest enough to speak up about our own faults, is not anything to be proud of.

mozzaok wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 10:18am:

To try and simplify the views of a man like Noam Chomsky.

Noam Chomsky.

Now if ever there was a man who infuriates me with his horse manure views....

An anti-semite to boot.

I am not an advocate for Chomsky, but I recognise his abilities as a thinking person, and believe that putting him on a plane with someone who is a far more simplistic reactionary, like Pilger, is failing to pay due consideration to the depth, and complexity of Chomsky, by comparison.

A lot of what Chomsky says is actually pretty good, if you take the time to listen to him, but he is a bit too far out there for me to personally agree with his whole world view, but I still have to respect the man's intellect.

I think many people forget that people on the left are not sitting here crying over Bin Laden's death.  We are crying because a killing has been called "justice" when in reality justice is handed down by the courts.  

What surprises me the most is how narcissistic right wingers call themselves church goers...

mozzaok wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 10:29am:

I am not an advocate for Chomsky, but I recognise his abilities as a thinking person, and believe that putting him on a plane with someone who is a far more simplistic reactionary, like Pilger, is failing to pay due consideration to the depth, and complexity of Chomsky, by comparison. A lot of what Chomsky says is actually pretty good, if you take the time to listen to him, but he is a bit too far out there for me to personally agree with his whole world view, but I still have to respect the man's intellect.

Hopefully you'd not support his rampant anti-semitism.

Some of his comments about Israel are outrageous.

The article simply points out there are wing-nuts on both ends of the political spectrum.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 10:33am:

mozzaok wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:29am: I am not an advocate for Chomsky, but I recognise his abilities as a thinking person, and believe that putting him on a plane with someone who is a far more simplistic reactionary, like Pilger, is failing to pay due consideration to the depth, and complexity of Chomsky, by comparison. A lot of what Chomsky says is actually pretty good, if you take the time to listen to him, but he is a bit too far out there for me to personally agree with his whole world view, but I still have to respect the man's intellect. Hopefully you'd not support his rampant anti-semitism. Some of his comments about Israel are outrageous.

I just love all the indepth telling it like it is...

sort of reminds me of the 60s and the hippie revolution when they talked the meaningful  talk ..and all were in awe of them..lol..nothing has changed..

like you andrei I prefer to use my own instincts.. I dont need some guru to tell me what HE thinks..

Maybe they take the wankery a bit too far, but they do make some good points.

The world isn't so cleanly compartmentalised into 'good vs evil'

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 10:33am:

mozzaok wrote on May 11th, 2011 at 10:29am: I am not an advocate for Chomsky, but I recognise his abilities as a thinking person, and believe that putting him on a plane with someone who is a far more simplistic reactionary, like Pilger, is failing to pay due consideration to the depth, and complexity of Chomsky, by comparison. A lot of what Chomsky says is actually pretty good, if you take the time to listen to him, but he is a bit too far out there for me to personally agree with his whole world view, but I still have to respect the man's intellect. Hopefully you'd not support his rampant anti-semitism. Some of his comments about Israel are outrageous.

Unfortunately Andrei you are prey to the lies of an ever eager right who seek to malign any they believe are not with them, and Chomsky is certainly not anti-semitic.
His stance has always been anti-racist, and it is only his criticism of some of Israels actions that have seen the false anti-semitism accusation made.

Criticising an Israeli government is no more anti-semitic, than criticising the Gillard government is anti-Australian, and the people that make those false claims are the ones whose views you should view with caution.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 10:33am:

Hopefully you'd not support his rampant anti-semitism.

An antisemitic Jew, you reckon? That's a new one  ::)

As for the OP: if you oppose the death penalty then you have to oppose extrajudicial killings. That doesn't make you a nihilistic Jew-hater or any other of the generalisations and hollow insults the OP likes to fling around. It makes you morally consistent.

Chomsky's Follies
The professor's pronouncements about Osama Bin Laden are stupid and ignorant.
By Christopher Hitchens

http://www.slate.com/id/2293541/pagenum/all/

Hitchens is an attention seeking buffoon with an ego as puffed up as a toad on heat.

Simply, you can not punish killing by killing.

More to the point, you can not punish anyone without conviction. There's also the sovereinty issue.

With the very little information i know about the man, i do/would not care much for him. i don't care that he's dead. I care about the fact that 'we' killed him.

USA! USA! USA!..

A discussion must be had, and allowed to flourish.

I love this article. He tells it as it is. The extreme Left and their fetish for radical Islam will be exposed. It is one of the biggest perplexities in world politics. It makes no sense!! Why would lefties defend followers of an extreme right-wing ideology?

Tony Bradshaw wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 8:59pm:

I love this article. He tells it at is. The extreme Left and their fetish for radical Islam will be exposed. It is one of the biggest perplexities in world politics. It makes no sense!! Why would lefties defend followers of an extreme right-wing ideology?

I have heard the claim that the extreme left supports radical Islam, but I do not know of any actual examples that actually validate such statements.

I totally agree with the sentiment that radical Islam is an ugly totalitarian ideology that no sane "progressive", would ever endorse, and so I have to wonder about just who these critics are attacking as extreme lefties?

The unfortunate progression made by those from the right is that "progressive", "liberal", and "left", are interchangeable labels to be applied with little thought or justification, and are basically used to wrongly denounce people for holding views that they do not actually support at all, in some sweeping generalisation as extreme left.

Of course there are obviously loonie extremists on the far left, but they are very far from anything which could ever be considered as a cohesive movement, as unlike the loony right, they have no fervent pentecostal religious ethos linking them, but are typically more your run of the mill, assorted nuts.

Quote:

An antisemitic Jew, you reckon? That's a new one

I believe our Jewish right wing brothers (and sisters) call them "self loathing Jews".

Tony Bradshaw wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 8:59pm:

I love this article. He tells it at is. The extreme Left and their fetish for radical Islam will be exposed. It is one of the biggest perplexities in world politics. It makes no sense!! Why would lefties defend followers of an extreme right-wing ideology?

If only the Western right wingers weren't so into globalised commerce-cum-imperialism and resource plundering, there would be no need for the same oxymorons to 'install democracy' with unilateral military might...

Live, let live - and stay the smack out of backyards and perpetual disputes that ought not be your business!

Okay, which dimwit made this bit of usual partisan nonsense that passes for a thread on here an "Important Topic".

"Do your turds float or sink" would be more important.

Tony Bradshaw wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 8:59pm:

I love this article. He tells it at is.

I agree.



Quote:

The extreme Left and their fetish for radical Islam will be exposed. It is one of the biggest perplexities in world politics. It makes no sense!! Why would lefties defend followers of an extreme right-wing ideology?

We don't all. That's what you're missing here, Hitchens is NOT a right winger. He's a free thinker and that's an Anarchic virtue.

When I say "extreme left" im not lumping all lefties into a particular category. Its just bizzare that the people who shout the loudest from the rooftops about human rights and civil liberties are the same ones who seem to have a massive problem with liberal democracy!!

John Pilger is a walking disgrace. An apologist for dictators and single-party states, this darling of the extreme left has the nerve to give lectures condemning Western nations and their associated freedoms. Who is this man? What does he stand for? Guy Rundle on the otherhand...wtf...he attempted to use his invitation to Q&A as a ticket to preach the greatness of Socialism to the Australian people. Obviously he failed dismally and Tony Jones rightly cut him off to stop him wasting valuable air time. These dregs and wannabes are living in a parallel universe.

Tony Bradshaw wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 1:37am:

John Pilger is a walking disgrace. An apologist for dictators and single-party states, this darling of the extreme left has the nerve to give lectures condemning Western nations and their associated freedoms. Who is this man? What does he stand for? Guy Rundle on the otherhand...wtf...he attempted to use his invitation to Q&A as a ticket to preach the greatness of Socialism to the Australian people. Obviously he failed dismally and Tony Jones rightly cut him off to stop him wasting valuable air time. These dregs and wannabes are living in a parallel universe.

And you are intent on proving the right to have as many uncompromising nutters as the left? Good show, carry on :-)

Soren wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 9:04am:

In his maiden speech to NSW parliament last year Labor MLC Luke Foley, from the party's Left, argued that social democrats must confront the newest "totalitarian movement of the far Right" just as they successfully opposed fascism. "This global Islamist movement is misogynist, racist and homophobic [and] based on an utter perversion of the Islamic faith. "Too many progressives are silent about this," Foley insisted, "or worse, deny this." It is hard to disagree with the crux of Foley's argument. And yet if I must quibble with his analysis and that of Geras et al, it is their designation of the apologists for radical Islam, as "Left", an association that is arguably harming the electoral viability of centre-left parties across the globe. For they are no such thing.

Left or Right - the fact is an overly sensitive POLITICAL CORRECTNESS minority has taken hold of all debates in Australia

there are more words in a message addressing the political correctness of the message than the message itself

Hansonites vote for her not necessarily for the content of her message but rather the gumption of speaking the message

You question issues on Aborigines and you are demonised a racist

You question climate science and you are demonised as climate change deniers

The simplicity of sentence these apologists use is quiet astounding. They simply attach words to an idea

"We are doing this because it's the right thing to do"

You can attach this sentence/excuse to any wrong doing and it'll start to sound positive

Rudd is very good at this - better than anyone else I've seen

On the other hand he can use "We can't do this because it's wrong"

he doesn't have to explain why it's wrong because "it's just is!!"

Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al
What proof is their Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks???

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/inv.binladen.denial_1_bin-laden-taliban-supreme-leader-mullah-mohammed-omar?_s=PM:US


Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24697

Osama Bin Laden DENIED responsibility for 9/11 CIA now admits!

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=58865.0

Why would Bin Laden deny he commited the attacks if he was responsible......I question the official story about 9/11.....What proof is there Bin Laden was involved???

Yes Phil. My feeling is that if Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 he got what he deserved.

However I also have doubts.

As you say his group denied responsibility and it is a group which had previously been proud to claim responsibility for other actions.

They had been identified within days of the incident and only really accused by the same guys who told us that they had proof that Iraq had WMD's etc. (hardly a credible source)

In a situation where the US intelligence had to find someone to point the finger at quickly to restore their own credibility it would not be difficult to see them finding a scapegoat answer - someone who they knew to be a bad guy and deserved it anyway. (for other reasons)

I hope he was responsible for this but I somewhat doubt it.

Quote:

Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands. Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said

You gotta be knidding me right Philperth ?


Who exactly is Osama bin laden ? what made him famous ? HIS IS A LEADER OF A GLOBAL ISLAMIC TERRORIST GROUP WHO ATTRACT MUSLIM TERROR JUNKIES WHO GO OUT AND ABOUT BLOWING UP CIVILAINS, WOMEN AND CHILDREN ALONG WITH MILITARY PEOPLE WORLDWIDE.


But then again I suspect that THERE WOULD BE LEFTIES OUT THERE WHO WOULD SYMPATHIZE WITH THE DEVIL WHO SHARES IN SOME OF THERE ANTI AMERICA MANTRA, AND BELIEVE THAT A LEADER OF A TERRORIST ORGANISATION LIKE BIN LADEN IS INCAPABLE OF LYING WHEN HE SAYS HE DIDNT KILL ANYONE IN NEW YORK ON 9/11.

Quote:

In a situation where the US intelligence had to find someone to point the finger at quickly to restore their own credibility it would not be difficult to see them finding a scapegoat answer - someone who they knew to be a bad guy and deserved it anyway. (for other reasons) I hope he was responsible for this but I somewhat doubt it.

By Dnaever


Really, I guess you might be getting swayed to believe that the American government like Bush and the CIA committed this brutal act AGAINST THERE OWN PEOPLE, is that the other alternative your leaning on ???

stryder wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 11:10am:

Quote: In a situation where the US intelligence had to find someone to point the finger at quickly to restore their own credibility it would not be difficult to see them finding a scapegoat answer - someone who they knew to be a bad guy and deserved it anyway. (for other reasons) I hope he was responsible for this but I somewhat doubt it.     By Dnaever Really, I guess you might be getting swayed to believe that the American government like Bush and the CIA committed this brutal act AGAINST THERE OWN PEOPLE, is that the other alternative your leaning on ???

No I find it impossible to believe that, though there are definatly unexplained components of the story.

Too much of what happened makes no sense at all and has never been adequatly explained.

Quote:

No I find it impossible to believe that, though there are definatly unexplained components of the story.

And what are the unexplained components to this story that would make you think and question what the established mainstream version is that Al Qaeda which is said to be controlled and under the leadership of Osama bin laden in that time was responsible for 9/11 ???

stryder wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 11:31am:

Quote: No I find it impossible to believe that, though there are definatly unexplained components of the story. would make you think and question what the established mainstream version is that Al Qaeda which is said to be controlled and under the leadership of Osama bin laden in that time was responsible for 9/11 ???

What can you show to confirm that this is correct as I said I find nothing except the words from a known unreliable source.

Quote:

I suspect that THERE WOULD BE LEFTIES OUT THERE WHO WOULD SYMPATHIZE WITH THE DEVIL WHO SHARES IN SOME OF THERE ANTI AMERICA MANTRA, AND BELIEVE THAT A LEADER OF A TERRORIST ORGANISATION LIKE BIN LADEN IS INCAPABLE OF LYING WHEN HE SAYS HE DIDNT KILL ANYONE IN NEW YORK ON 9/11.

I suspect that THERE WOULD BE RIGHTIES OUT THERE WHO WOULD SYMPATHIZE WITH THE GOD WHO SHARES IN SOME OF THEIR  AMERICAN MANTRA, AND BELIEVE THAT THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD,  LIKE GRORGE BUSH WOULD BR INCAPABLE OF LYING WHEN HE SAYS IRAQ HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 9/11 ATTACKS.

Quote:

I suspect that THERE WOULD BE RIGHTIES OUT THERE WHO WOULD SYMPATHIZE WITH THE GOD WHO SHARES IN SOME OF THEIR  AMERICAN MANTRA, AND BELIEVE THAT THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD,  LIKE GRORGE BUSH WOULD BR INCAPABLE OF LYING WHEN HE SAYS IRAQ HAS WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 9/11 ATTACKS.

I guess Saddam Hussien is more appealing than George W Bush to GREY,  ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

What can you show to confirm that this is correct as I said I find nothing except the words from a known unreliable source.

You are the one in question over the official mainstream version of the story behind 9/11, you are the one that maybe entertaining the idea that it was an INSIDE JOB, ????

That would be mean that the other alternative is that GEORGE W BUSH AND HIS ENTIRE PRESIDENCY HAD SUCCESSFULLY STAGE AN ATTACK ON 9/11 TO INFLICT CARNAGE, DAMAGE AND KILLING AROUND 3000 PEOPLE ON THAT DAY, AND BLAME ON PRETTY RADICAL MUSLIM TERRORIST OUTFIT, NOW THAT WOULD BE DEFINED AS A CONSPIRACY.

You think you could believe that kind of evil, devious and mind blowing conspiracy of that kind could come OUT OF AN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, ???? Dnaever


Of course not, so what other explanation it could be ??

stryder wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 11:06am:

And what are the unexplained components to this story that would make you think and question what the established mainstream version is that Al Qaeda which is said to be controlled and under the leadership of Osama bin laden in that time was responsible for 9/11 ???

I never said that the unexplained components of the story had a relationship to who caused it to happen.

My understanding for years had been that for a building to collapse down on itself in a controlled manner was extremely unlikely. This is the reason that demolition teams were routinely employed to plan and execute building demolition at a huge expense.

That day 4 buildings collapsed in a controlled manner - not one slewed off sideways or toppled over they all went straight down, two collapsed (the twin buildings) under a situation they were supposedly designed to withstand.

The other two for not much reason at all. I would have thought that this would be about a million to one occurrence.

Obviously if not the demolition industry had been ripping off its customers for years as buildings just naturally collapse straight down in a controlled manner though I do not know of one other instance where this happened.

The plane which crashed into the pentagon which left a whole too small for the plane to fit inside but also left no wreckage outside.

The wings would not have fitted into the building but there was absolutely nothing on the ground.

No whole in the ground no indication of fire no bits of wing or engines - just nothing at all.

How did this happen – I have no idea.

Everywhere you look at this story you find points which are difficult to believe.

I can not believe that the US did this themself but there is more here than we have been told.

stryder wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 11:48am:

Quote: What can you show to confirm that this is correct as I said I find nothing except the words from a known unreliable source. You are the one in question over the official mainstream version of the story behind 9/11, you are the one that maybe entertaining the idea that it was an INSIDE JOB, ????

Please do not put words in my keyboard. I never said that and in fact have refuted it twice. I do not believe that it was an insider job, that is too horrible to contemplate.

stryder wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 11:31am:

Quote: No I find it impossible to believe that, though there are definatly unexplained components of the story. question what the established mainstream version is that Al Qaeda which is said to be controlled and under the leadership of Osama bin laden in that time was responsible for 9/11 ???

The point is that there is nothing in the mainstream version which actually supports that it was Bin Laden who was responsible.

It is just there - common knowledge and statments but it is actually not backed with any real data.

All I am saying is that I din't know either way if he was responsible or not.

Quote:

My understanding for years had been that for a building to collapse down on itself in a controlled manner was extremely unlikely. This is the reason that demolition teams were routinely employed to plan and execute building demolition at a huge expense.

I guess you have more understanding than most about how the WAYS a building should fall after being hit by a commercial jet plane within the realm of physics ????

stryder wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 12:10pm:

Quote: My understanding for years had been that for a building to collapse down on itself in a controlled manner was extremely unlikely. This is the reason that demolition teams were routinely employed to plan and execute building demolition at a huge expense. I guess you have more understanding than most about the WAYS a building should fall within the realm of physics ????

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=building+collapse&hl=en&biw=1680&bih=916&prmd=ivnsu&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=MQ38TZWxIYnuuAPtgMW2Aw&ved=0CGkQsAQ

http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/wordp/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/building-collapse.jpg

My understanding has always been that this type of building failure is by far the most likely.

Maybe they are now designed to fall in a controlled manner but I have never heard of this being the case.

To my knowledge a building to collapse in a controlled manner naturally would be rare but for 4 buildings in the same location to do it on the same day without any explanation is very difficult to believe.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 11^th, 2011 at 10:20am:

An anti-semite to boot.

You people have no shame in the level you will stoop to to try and vilify people you disagree with. How can A JEW be an ANTI SEMITE? You smacking moron ::)

What the hell is this thread doing as a sticky anyway>? It's already regressed into 9/11 Truth woo, hardly bodes well for it being some kind of intellectually stimulating discussion so important that it needs to stay on page 1.

stryder wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 12:10pm:

Quote: My understanding for years had been that for a building to collapse down on itself in a controlled manner was extremely unlikely. This is the reason that demolition teams were routinely employed to plan and execute building demolition at a huge expense. I guess you have more understanding than most about how the WAYS a building should fall after being hit by a commercial jet plane within the realm of physics ????

But building # 7 was not hit by an airplane......There was no jet fuel to flame the fires and melt the steel.....That aside Bin Laden has denied any involvement.....the only evidence provided by the Bush administration has been condemned as a fake......So with no credible evidence linking Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks two countries where invaded.....If Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 then why did he deny it and why did the Yanks try to frame him???

It's interesting that Bin Laden denied the attacks at all - it was this action that cemented his notoriety. Before that he was an inconvenience.

As for Saddam - he would still be alive today if he allowed the weapon inspectors to come in and made a mockery out of the US that way. Instead choosing to take the other path. Mind you he had 10 years to think about it.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 5:37pm:

It's interesting that Bin Laden denied the attacks at all - it was this action that cemented his notoriety. Before that he was an inconvenience. As for Saddam - he would still be alive today if he allowed the weapon inspectors to come in and made a mockery out of the US that way. Instead choosing to take the other path. Mind you he had 10 years to think about it.

The problem is there where no WMD's in Iraq and Saddam Hussein did allow weapons inspectors into the country.....America ordered them out!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2856647.stm

http://thesarcasticcynic.blogspot.com/2008/01/bush-kicked-out-weapons-inspectors-not.html

Dnarever wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 11:57am:

stryder wrote on Jun 18th, 2011 at 11:06am: And what are the unexplained components to this story that would make you think and question what the established mainstream version is that Al Qaeda which is said to be controlled and under the leadership of Osama bin laden in that time was responsible for 9/11 ??? I never said that the unexplained components of the story had a relationship to who caused it to happen. My understanding for years had been that for a building to collapse down on itself in a controlled manner was extremely unlikely. This is the reason that demolition teams were routinely employed to plan and execute building demolition at a huge expense. That day 4 buildings collapsed in a controlled manner - not one slewed off sideways or toppled over they all went straight down, two collapsed (the twin buildings) under a situation they were supposedly designed to withstand. The other two for not much reason at all. I would have thought that this would be about a million to one occurrence. Obviously if not the demolition industry had been ripping off its customers for years as buildings just naturally collapse straight down in a controlled manner though I do not know of one other instance where this happened. The plane which crashed into the pentagon which left a whole too small for the plane to fit inside but also left no wreckage outside. The wings would not have fitted into the building but there was absolutely nothing on the ground. No whole in the ground no indication of fire no bits of wing or engines - just nothing at all. How did this happen – I have no idea. Everywhere you look at this story you find points which are difficult to believe. I can not believe that the US did this themself but there is more here than we have been told.

It is not uncommon for buildings to collapse into their own footprint. When buildings are being demolished deliberately it makes perfect sense to optimise this outcome. In the case of the twin towers it's absolutely reasonable that this outcome eventuated. Gravity pulls downwards directly, not off to one side. The base of the building was cavernous and so it shouldn't surprise anybody that that is where the rubble ended up.  Pictures from Earthquakes and blitzes show that most of the buildings fell into their own footprint.  

Why is this an important topic?

I mean, let's just have the first page full of important topics.

No-one has responded to the "notes on starting new topics" since November.

The extremist thread could sit anywhere.

I'm more interested in politics than "important toics" which one rarely looks at.

Grey wrote on Jun 19^th, 2011 at 1:35am:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 18th, 2011 at 11:57am: stryder wrote on Jun 18th, 2011 at 11:06am: And what are the unexplained components to this story that would make you think and question what the established mainstream version is that Al Qaeda which is said to be controlled and under the leadership of Osama bin laden in that time was responsible for 9/11 ??? I never said that the unexplained components of the story had a relationship to who caused it to happen. My understanding for years had been that for a building to collapse down on itself in a controlled manner was extremely unlikely. This is the reason that demolition teams were routinely employed to plan and execute building demolition at a huge expense. That day 4 buildings collapsed in a controlled manner - not one slewed off sideways or toppled over they all went straight down, two collapsed (the twin buildings) under a situation they were supposedly designed to withstand. The other two for not much reason at all. I would have thought that this would be about a million to one occurrence. Obviously if not the demolition industry had been ripping off its customers for years as buildings just naturally collapse straight down in a controlled manner though I do not know of one other instance where this happened. The plane which crashed into the pentagon which left a whole too small for the plane to fit inside but also left no wreckage outside. The wings would not have fitted into the building but there was absolutely nothing on the ground. No whole in the ground no indication of fire no bits of wing or engines - just nothing at all. How did this happen – I have no idea. Everywhere you look at this story you find points which are difficult to believe. I can not believe that the US did this themself but there is more here than we have been told. It is not uncommon for buildings to collapse into their own footprint. When buildings are being demolished deliberately it makes perfect sense to optimise this outcome. In the case of the twin towers it's absolutely reasonable that this outcome eventuated. Gravity pulls downwards directly, not off to one side. The base of the building was cavernous and so it shouldn't surprise anybody that that is where the rubble ended up.  Pictures from Earthquakes and blitzes show that most of the buildings fell into their own footprint.

Three buildings collapsed into their own footprint on the same day......Building # 7 was not hit by a plane and yet it still came down at free fall speed......WTC 1 & 2 where of a vastly different design and suffered a great deal more damage yet all three buildings fell in a similar manner.....How???

http://www.physics911.net/stevenjones

1. As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically — even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.) A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of most or all of the support columns. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and symmetrical collapse of buildings.

Concluding remarks in the FEMA report on the WTC 7 collapse lend support to my arguments:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [”official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)

That is precisely my point: further investigation and analyses are needed, including consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis which is neglected in all of the government reports (FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports). Note that the 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01. (Commission, 2004) This is a striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really happened on 9-11.


I would also like to add that there has been no official invsetigation into the possibility of a controlled demolition or in fact why building # 7 collapsed.....The cause remains unknown!!!

>:(

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 6:46pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 18th, 2011 at 5:37pm: It's interesting that Bin Laden denied the attacks at all - it was this action that cemented his notoriety. Before that he was an inconvenience. As for Saddam - he would still be alive today if he allowed the weapon inspectors to come in and made a mockery out of the US that way. Instead choosing to take the other path. Mind you he had 10 years to think about it. The problem is there where no WMD's in Iraq and Saddam Hussein did allow weapons inspectors into the country.....America ordered them out!!! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2856647.stm http://thesarcasticcynic.blogspot.com/2008/01/bush-kicked-out-weapons-inspectors-not.html

Try again phil

You are better than that!

Maqqa wrote on Jun 20^th, 2011 at 8:10pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 18th, 2011 at 6:46pm: Maqqa wrote on Jun 18th, 2011 at 5:37pm: It's interesting that Bin Laden denied the attacks at all - it was this action that cemented his notoriety. Before that he was an inconvenience. As for Saddam - he would still be alive today if he allowed the weapon inspectors to come in and made a mockery out of the US that way. Instead choosing to take the other path. Mind you he had 10 years to think about it. The problem is there where no WMD's in Iraq and Saddam Hussein did allow weapons inspectors into the country.....America ordered them out!!! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2856647.stm http://thesarcasticcynic.blogspot.com/2008/01/bush-kicked-out-weapons-inspectors-not.html Try again phil You are better than that!

No need Macca.....Most of the world accepts Bush was a lying wanker.....In fact most of the world knew he was a lying wanker before the illegal invasion of Iraq......If you can dispute my argument please do so???

;)


Inspectors urged to leave Iraq

UN weapons inspectors say they have been warned by the United States to start leaving Iraq in what is seen as the clearest sign yet that war is imminent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2856647.stm

Quote:

No need Macca.....Most of the world accepts Bush was a lying wanker.....In fact most of the world knew he was a lying wanker before the illegal invasion of Iraq......If you can dispute my argument please do so???

There's a disconnect between going to war against Hussein on a pretext in order to secure Iraq'a oil supplies for America and blowing up the heartland of American capitalism.

Surely if George Bush was going to mount a black op. to start a global war on terror his target would've been some expendable poor people?

Grey wrote on Jun 19^th, 2011 at 1:35am:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 18th, 2011 at 11:57am: stryder wrote on Jun 18th, 2011 at 11:06am: And what are the unexplained components to this story that would make you think and question what the established mainstream version is that Al Qaeda which is said to be controlled and under the leadership of Osama bin laden in that time was responsible for 9/11 ??? I never said that the unexplained components of the story had a relationship to who caused it to happen. My understanding for years had been that for a building to collapse down on itself in a controlled manner was extremely unlikely. This is the reason that demolition teams were routinely employed to plan and execute building demolition at a huge expense. That day 4 buildings collapsed in a controlled manner - not one slewed off sideways or toppled over they all went straight down, two collapsed (the twin buildings) under a situation they were supposedly designed to withstand. The other two for not much reason at all. I would have thought that this would be about a million to one occurrence. Obviously if not the demolition industry had been ripping off its customers for years as buildings just naturally collapse straight down in a controlled manner though I do not know of one other instance where this happened. The plane which crashed into the pentagon which left a whole too small for the plane to fit inside but also left no wreckage outside. The wings would not have fitted into the building but there was absolutely nothing on the ground. No whole in the ground no indication of fire no bits of wing or engines - just nothing at all. How did this happen – I have no idea. Everywhere you look at this story you find points which are difficult to believe. I can not believe that the US did this themself but there is more here than we have been told. It is not uncommon for buildings to collapse into their own footprint. When buildings are being demolished deliberately it makes perfect sense to optimise this outcome. In the case of the twin towers it's absolutely reasonable that this outcome eventuated. Gravity pulls downwards directly, not off to one side. The base of the building was cavernous and so it shouldn't surprise anybody that that is where the rubble ended up.  Pictures from Earthquakes and blitzes show that most of the buildings fell into their own footprint.

You have only opinion like everyone else. Your example is no-where near the same as a building being hit by a plane. Earth quakes shake at the foundation of a building. That has nothing to do with 911.

Grey wrote on Jun 21^st, 2011 at 12:25am:

Quote: No need Macca.....Most of the world accepts Bush was a lying wanker.....In fact most of the world knew he was a lying wanker before the illegal invasion of Iraq......If you can dispute my argument please do so??? There's a disconnect between going to war against Hussein on a pretext in order to secure Iraq'a oil supplies for America and blowing up the heartland of American capitalism. Surely if George Bush was going to mount a black op. to start a global war on terror his target would've been some expendable poor people?

The owner of the WTC made billions from the attacks......The American Government has secured 1/3 of the worlds oil supplies......The people who died where poor compared to the amount of money the attacks generated for individual vested interests at taxpayers expense....It is not as if the American government has not done it before is it???


By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon


Thirty years ago, it all seemed very clear.

"American Planes Hit North Vietnam After Second Attack on Our Destroyers; Move Taken to Halt New Aggression", announced a Washington Post headline on Aug. 5, 1964.

That same day, the front page of the New York Times reported: "President Johnson has ordered retaliatory action against gunboats and 'certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam' after renewed attacks against American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin."

But there was no "second attack" by North Vietnam — no "renewed attacks against American destroyers." By reporting official claims as absolute truths, American journalism opened the floodgates for the bloody Vietnam War.

A pattern took hold: continuous government lies passed on by pliant mass media...leading to over 50,000 American deaths and millions of Vietnamese casualties.

The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" against a U.S. destroyer on "routine patrol" in the Tonkin Gulf on Aug. 2 — and that North Vietnamese PT boats followed up with a "deliberate attack" on a pair of U.S. ships two days later.

The truth was very different.

Rather than being on a routine patrol Aug. 2, the U.S. destroyer Maddox was actually engaged in aggressive intelligence-gathering maneuvers — in sync with coordinated attacks on North Vietnam by the South Vietnamese navy and the Laotian air force.

"The day before, two attacks on North Vietnam...had taken place," writes scholar Daniel C. Hallin. Those assaults were "part of a campaign of increasing military pressure on the North that the United States had been pursuing since early 1964."

On the night of Aug. 4, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf — a report cited by President Johnson as he went on national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam.

But Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to "retaliate" for a North Vietnamese torpedo attack that never happened.

>:(

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2261

http://www.vvaw.org/veteran/article/?id=428

Grey wrote on Jun 19^th, 2011 at 1:35am:

It is not uncommon for buildings to collapse into their own footprint. When buildings are being demolished deliberately it makes perfect sense to optimise this outcome. In the case of the twin towers it's absolutely reasonable that this outcome eventuated. Gravity pulls downwards directly, not off to one side. The base of the building was cavernous and so it shouldn't surprise anybody that that is where the rubble ended up.  Pictures from Earthquakes and blitzes show that most of the buildings fell into their own footprint.

Things tend also to fall on the path of least resistance and tend very much to not fail with symmetry, damage or weakness to one side or the other causing an area to hang on longer and cause a slewing effect.

The path of least resistance is seldom going to be on the path specifically engineered to remain in place v a free fall into an open space which is further encouraged by non symmetrical nature of collapse. To get a symmetrical collapse it is required to have synchronised failure of many structural points across the structure simultaneously.

The only way a building collapses on itself is when the failure is from the foundation which is how controlled demolition is engineered.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 21^st, 2011 at 10:33pm:

Grey wrote on Jun 19th, 2011 at 1:35am: It is not uncommon for buildings to collapse into their own footprint. When buildings are being demolished deliberately it makes perfect sense to optimise this outcome. In the case of the twin towers it's absolutely reasonable that this outcome eventuated. Gravity pulls downwards directly, not off to one side. The base of the building was cavernous and so it shouldn't surprise anybody that that is where the rubble ended up.  Pictures from Earthquakes and blitzes show that most of the buildings fell into their own footprint.   Things tend also to fall on the path of least resistance and tend very much to not fail with symmetry, damage or weakness to one side or the other causing an area to hang on longer and cause a slewing effect. The path of least resistance is seldom going to be on the path specifically engineered to remain in place v a free fall into an open space which is further encouraged by non symmetrical nature of collapse. To get a symmetrical collapse it is required to have synchronised failure of many structural points across the structure simultaneously. The only way a building collapses on itself is when the failure is from the foundation which is how controlled demolition is engineered.

3 buildings had simultaneous structural failure on the same day when no building before or after has collapsed in the same manner without controlled demolition......I fail to see where this question has ever been answered???

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Aldous Huxley (1894 - 1963), "Proper Studies", 1927

So many conspiracy theorists, so little time.

Sorry...but if you stand up on the 'World Stage' and say "I did it, I did it, I did it"....don't be surprise of the World actually DOES think 'YOU did it'...

If you didn't Do it..maybe you should have said 'I DIDN'T do IT'???

Most criminals tend to say..'It WASN'T me'....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2011 at 3:54pm:

Sorry...but if you stand up on the 'World Stage' and say "I did it, I did it, I did it"....don't be surprise of the World actually DOES think 'YOU did it'... If you didn't Do it..maybe you should have said 'I DIDN'T do IT'??? Most criminals tend to say..'It WASN'T me'....

Who are you talking about....Bin Laden has denied he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks???

;)

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 24^th, 2011 at 4:50pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 24th, 2011 at 3:54pm: Sorry...but if you stand up on the 'World Stage' and say "I did it, I did it, I did it"....don't be surprise of the World actually DOES think 'YOU did it'... If you didn't Do it..maybe you should have said 'I DIDN'T do IT'??? Most criminals tend to say..'It WASN'T me'.... Who are you talking about....Bin Laden has denied he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks??? ;)

but admitted it when he'd cught his breath. But let's look at it from the other way. George Bush blew up thew twin towers because...?

After Watergate even an idiot like George Bush could see that such a plan could come badly unstuck. If it did come unstuck he'd've been condemned to death. He couldn't have done it without a whole army of people being in on it. So security would've been almost non existent. Really the proposition stops there, but let's say they all agreed and went ahead. WHY?

The real bogeyman Bush wanted was Saddam and the machine was already running flat out on that and 9/11 hardly figured in the equation. Nobody gave a flying bugger about the Taliban, lots of people wanted regime change there anyway. The case for a humanitarian regime change in Afghanistan was a lay down misere. So where's the motive for 9/11?

Grey wrote on Jun 25^th, 2011 at 11:30am:

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 24th, 2011 at 4:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 24th, 2011 at 3:54pm: Sorry...but if you stand up on the 'World Stage' and say "I did it, I did it, I did it"....don't be surprise of the World actually DOES think 'YOU did it'... If you didn't Do it..maybe you should have said 'I DIDN'T do IT'??? Most criminals tend to say..'It WASN'T me'.... Who are you talking about....Bin Laden has denied he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks??? ;) but admitted it when he'd cught his breath. But let's look at it from the other way. George Bush blew up thew twin towers because...? After Watergate even an idiot like George Bush could see that such a plan could come badly unstuck. If it did come unstuck he'd've been condemned to death. He couldn't have done it without a whole army of people being in on it. So security would've been almost non existent. Really the proposition stops there, but let's say they all agreed and went ahead. WHY? The real bogeyman Bush wanted was Saddam and the machine was already running flat out on that and 9/11 hardly figured in the equation. Nobody gave a flying bugger about the Taliban, lots of people wanted regime change there anyway. The case for a humanitarian regime change in Afghanistan was a lay down misere. So where's the motive for 9/11?

Bullshit.....A one line rebuke that ignores the facts is typical of those who deny the facts.....Osama Bin Laden denied any involvement in the 9/11 attacks.....The only video in which he claims responsibility has been proven to be a fake!!!

As for the collapse of the WTC 1,2 & 7 ON 9/11, no one knows how they all failed on the same day despite no building ever collapsing in this way before or after without controlled demolition.....How these buildings collapsed has never been answered....Who did it is another question!!!

>:(

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams (1735 - 1826), 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770

As for 9/11 having no bearing on the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.....Are you that stupid....Of course you are???

;)

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2011 at 11:51am:

Grey wrote on Jun 25th, 2011 at 11:30am: philperth2010 wrote on Jun 24th, 2011 at 4:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 24th, 2011 at 3:54pm: Sorry...but if you stand up on the 'World Stage' and say "I did it, I did it, I did it"....don't be surprise of the World actually DOES think 'YOU did it'... If you didn't Do it..maybe you should have said 'I DIDN'T do IT'??? Most criminals tend to say..'It WASN'T me'.... Who are you talking about....Bin Laden has denied he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks??? ;) but admitted it when he'd cught his breath. But let's look at it from the other way. George Bush blew up thew twin towers because...? After Watergate even an idiot like George Bush could see that such a plan could come badly unstuck. If it did come unstuck he'd've been condemned to death. He couldn't have done it without a whole army of people being in on it. So security would've been almost non existent. Really the proposition stops there, but let's say they all agreed and went ahead. WHY? The real bogeyman Bush wanted was Saddam and the machine was already running flat out on that and 9/11 hardly figured in the equation. Nobody gave a flying bugger about the Taliban, lots of people wanted regime change there anyway. The case for a humanitarian regime change in Afghanistan was a lay down misere. So where's the motive for 9/11? Bullshit.....A one line rebuke that ignores the facts is typical of those who deny the facts.....Osama Bin Laden denied any involvement in the 9/11 attacks.....The only video in which he claims responsibility has been proven to be a fake!!! As for the collapse of the WTC 1,2 & 7 ON 9/11, no one knows how they all failed on the same day despite no building ever collapsing in this way before or after without controlled demolition.....How these buildings collapsed has never been answered....Who did it is another question!!! >:( Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams (1735 - 1826), 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770 As for 9/11 having no bearing on the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.....Are you that stupid....Of course you are??? ;)

the clear and unequivocal argument against an inside job is the sheer impossibility of running such an operation so flawlessly and without any leaks prior to or since the event. flat out impossible. hundreds had to be involved and the conspiracists want us to believe no one would say anything.

and since when does a criminals claim of 'not guilty' suddenly become proof of his innocence?

seriously people. OCCAMS RAZOR. the simplest answer IS the most likely.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2011 at 12:10pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 25th, 2011 at 11:51am: Grey wrote on Jun 25th, 2011 at 11:30am: philperth2010 wrote on Jun 24th, 2011 at 4:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 24th, 2011 at 3:54pm: Sorry...but if you stand up on the 'World Stage' and say "I did it, I did it, I did it"....don't be surprise of the World actually DOES think 'YOU did it'... If you didn't Do it..maybe you should have said 'I DIDN'T do IT'??? Most criminals tend to say..'It WASN'T me'.... Who are you talking about....Bin Laden has denied he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks??? ;) but admitted it when he'd cught his breath. But let's look at it from the other way. George Bush blew up thew twin towers because...? After Watergate even an idiot like George Bush could see that such a plan could come badly unstuck. If it did come unstuck he'd've been condemned to death. He couldn't have done it without a whole army of people being in on it. So security would've been almost non existent. Really the proposition stops there, but let's say they all agreed and went ahead. WHY? The real bogeyman Bush wanted was Saddam and the machine was already running flat out on that and 9/11 hardly figured in the equation. Nobody gave a flying bugger about the Taliban, lots of people wanted regime change there anyway. The case for a humanitarian regime change in Afghanistan was a lay down misere. So where's the motive for 9/11? Bullshit.....A one line rebuke that ignores the facts is typical of those who deny the facts.....Osama Bin Laden denied any involvement in the 9/11 attacks.....The only video in which he claims responsibility has been proven to be a fake!!! As for the collapse of the WTC 1,2 & 7 ON 9/11, no one knows how they all failed on the same day despite no building ever collapsing in this way before or after without controlled demolition.....How these buildings collapsed has never been answered....Who did it is another question!!! >:( Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams (1735 - 1826), 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770 As for 9/11 having no bearing on the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.....Are you that stupid....Of course you are??? ;) the clear and unequivocal argument against an inside job is the sheer impossibility of running such an operation so flawlessly and without any leaks prior to or since the event. flat out impossible. hundreds had to be involved and the conspiracists want us to believe no one would say anything. and since when does a criminals claim of 'not guilty' suddenly become proof of his innocence? seriously people. OCCAMS RAZOR. the simplest answer IS the most likely.

However we have no answers do we LW!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2011 at 12:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 25th, 2011 at 12:10pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jun 25th, 2011 at 11:51am: Grey wrote on Jun 25th, 2011 at 11:30am: philperth2010 wrote on Jun 24th, 2011 at 4:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 24th, 2011 at 3:54pm: Sorry...but if you stand up on the 'World Stage' and say "I did it, I did it, I did it"....don't be surprise of the World actually DOES think 'YOU did it'... If you didn't Do it..maybe you should have said 'I DIDN'T do IT'??? Most criminals tend to say..'It WASN'T me'.... Who are you talking about....Bin Laden has denied he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks??? ;) but admitted it when he'd cught his breath. But let's look at it from the other way. George Bush blew up thew twin towers because...? After Watergate even an idiot like George Bush could see that such a plan could come badly unstuck. If it did come unstuck he'd've been condemned to death. He couldn't have done it without a whole army of people being in on it. So security would've been almost non existent. Really the proposition stops there, but let's say they all agreed and went ahead. WHY? The real bogeyman Bush wanted was Saddam and the machine was already running flat out on that and 9/11 hardly figured in the equation. Nobody gave a flying bugger about the Taliban, lots of people wanted regime change there anyway. The case for a humanitarian regime change in Afghanistan was a lay down misere. So where's the motive for 9/11? Bullshit.....A one line rebuke that ignores the facts is typical of those who deny the facts.....Osama Bin Laden denied any involvement in the 9/11 attacks.....The only video in which he claims responsibility has been proven to be a fake!!! As for the collapse of the WTC 1,2 & 7 ON 9/11, no one knows how they all failed on the same day despite no building ever collapsing in this way before or after without controlled demolition.....How these buildings collapsed has never been answered....Who did it is another question!!! >:( Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams (1735 - 1826), 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770 As for 9/11 having no bearing on the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.....Are you that stupid....Of course you are??? ;) the clear and unequivocal argument against an inside job is the sheer impossibility of running such an operation so flawlessly and without any leaks prior to or since the event. flat out impossible. hundreds had to be involved and the conspiracists want us to believe no one would say anything. and since when does a criminals claim of 'not guilty' suddenly become proof of his innocence? seriously people. OCCAMS RAZOR. the simplest answer IS the most likely. However we have no answers do we LW!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw

of course we do. we can beleive that islamic terrorists pulled off an extraordinarily difficult and effective attack. it is certainly far far more likely than the idiotic and unsupportable notion that the USA govenment - which cant keep a secret involving more than 4 people - could mastermind such a monstrous act and keep it quiet. and as someone else said: what is the motivation for them to do it? nothing came out of 9/11 that the USA Govt could have done without it happening.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 25^th, 2011 at 3:32pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 25th, 2011 at 12:33pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 25th, 2011 at 12:10pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jun 25th, 2011 at 11:51am: Grey wrote on Jun 25th, 2011 at 11:30am: philperth2010 wrote on Jun 24th, 2011 at 4:50pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 24th, 2011 at 3:54pm: Sorry...but if you stand up on the 'World Stage' and say "I did it, I did it, I did it"....don't be surprise of the World actually DOES think 'YOU did it'... If you didn't Do it..maybe you should have said 'I DIDN'T do IT'??? Most criminals tend to say..'It WASN'T me'.... Who are you talking about....Bin Laden has denied he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks??? ;) but admitted it when he'd cught his breath. But let's look at it from the other way. George Bush blew up thew twin towers because...? After Watergate even an idiot like George Bush could see that such a plan could come badly unstuck. If it did come unstuck he'd've been condemned to death. He couldn't have done it without a whole army of people being in on it. So security would've been almost non existent. Really the proposition stops there, but let's say they all agreed and went ahead. WHY? The real bogeyman Bush wanted was Saddam and the machine was already running flat out on that and 9/11 hardly figured in the equation. Nobody gave a flying bugger about the Taliban, lots of people wanted regime change there anyway. The case for a humanitarian regime change in Afghanistan was a lay down misere. So where's the motive for 9/11? Bullshit.....A one line rebuke that ignores the facts is typical of those who deny the facts.....Osama Bin Laden denied any involvement in the 9/11 attacks.....The only video in which he claims responsibility has been proven to be a fake!!! As for the collapse of the WTC 1,2 & 7 ON 9/11, no one knows how they all failed on the same day despite no building ever collapsing in this way before or after without controlled demolition.....How these buildings collapsed has never been answered....Who did it is another question!!! >:( Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. John Adams (1735 - 1826), 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770 As for 9/11 having no bearing on the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.....Are you that stupid....Of course you are??? ;) the clear and unequivocal argument against an inside job is the sheer impossibility of running such an operation so flawlessly and without any leaks prior to or since the event. flat out impossible. hundreds had to be involved and the conspiracists want us to believe no one would say anything. and since when does a criminals claim of 'not guilty' suddenly become proof of his innocence? seriously people. OCCAMS RAZOR. the simplest answer IS the most likely. However we have no answers do we LW!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T2_nedORjw of course we do. we can beleive that islamic terrorists pulled off an extraordinarily difficult and effective attack. it is certainly far far more likely than the idiotic and unsupportable notion that the USA govenment - which cant keep a secret involving more than 4 people - could mastermind such a monstrous act and keep it quiet. and as someone else said: what is the motivation for them to do it? nothing came out of 9/11 that the USA Govt could have done without it happening.

You quote my comments and then argue about a completely different subject.....Why do I bother with you Longy when you are so dishonest.....I have not blamed the USA government for the attacks.....My comments have only addressed the total failure of 3 steel framed buildings on the same day when it has never happened before or after without controlled demolition.....Building 7 was not even hit by an airplane and it collapsed.....No where has the collapse of building 7 been explained.....You focus on the extreme point of an argument I have not even addressed to deflect from my real comments which is typical of your lack of credibility on these boards.....Questions still remain unanswered and for this the American Government stands condemned!!!

>:(

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), The Gay Science, section 191

Quote:

My comments have only addressed the total failure of 3 steel framed buildings on the same day when it has never happened before or after without controlled demolition.....Building 7 was not even hit by an airplane and it collapsed.....No where has the collapse of building 7 been explained..... >:(

Actually Phil, Building 7 was explained...but the conspiracy buffs won't accept it..
No it wasn't hit by a plane....but it WAS hit by a good sized chunk of flaming debris from one of the Towers, enough so that almost half of one side was torn open and set on fire..

There is a photo or several of the damage (or was) on the internet...If I can find then again, I'll post them here, or link them later on when I get some time..

And the infamous "pull the building" comment relating to #7 meant quite literally that....pulling it...with cables, so it would collapes into the existing damage area, instead of outwards onto unaffected buildings..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 10:17am:

Quote: My comments have only addressed the total failure of 3 steel framed buildings on the same day when it has never happened before or after without controlled demolition.....Building 7 was not even hit by an airplane and it collapsed.....No where has the collapse of building 7 been explained..... >:( Actually Phil, Building 7 was explained...but the conspiracy buffs won't accept it.. No it wasn't hit by a plane....but it WAS hit by a good sized chunk of flaming debris from one of the Towers, enough so that almost half of one side was torn open and set on fire.. There is a photo or several of the damage (or was) on the internet...If I can find then again, I'll post them here, or link them later on when I get some time.. And the infamous "pull the building" comment relating to #7 meant quite literally that....pulling it...with cables, so it would collapes into the existing damage area, instead of outwards onto unaffected buildings..

Seriously, do you accept that explanation given the nature and extent of the havoc, carnage and access/traffic restrictions on that day - not to mention the inherent danger of having people anywhere on site to rig-up the purported 'pull' at such short notice and in such a short timeframe!?

Where and when in the world has there ever been a precedent for taking such a bizarre action to demolish a fire-cum-impact-damaged steel building in record time - much less than when literally in the thick of such a monumental disaster!?

C'mon, owners and authorities (and their insurers) simply do not mobilse the engineering experts and demolition technicians and get in and assess the damage and authorise and safely and efficiently plan for - much less physically-demolish fire/impact-damaged buildings - on the very day of the trigger incident/s!?

FFS, on any other day, they wouldn't risk letting anybody within miles of an unprecedented volatile and ongoing disaster!

Moreover, any other demolition of such a large steel-framed building would be modeled and engineered over a matter of weeks or months - with the mobilisation of the required expertise and equipment taking weeks and months to co-ordinate...

The only tenable explanation, is that the demolition of Building 7 was pre-meditated and pre-rigged!

Equitist wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 10:34am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 10:17am: Quote: My comments have only addressed the total failure of 3 steel framed buildings on the same day when it has never happened before or after without controlled demolition.....Building 7 was not even hit by an airplane and it collapsed.....No where has the collapse of building 7 been explained..... >:( Actually Phil, Building 7 was explained...but the conspiracy buffs won't accept it.. No it wasn't hit by a plane....but it WAS hit by a good sized chunk of flaming debris from one of the Towers, enough so that almost half of one side was torn open and set on fire.. There is a photo or several of the damage (or was) on the internet...If I can find then again, I'll post them here, or link them later on when I get some time.. And the infamous "pull the building" comment relating to #7 meant quite literally that....pulling it...with cables, so it would collapes into the existing damage area, instead of outwards onto unaffected buildings.. Seriously, do you accept that explanation given the nature and extent of the havoc and carnage on that day - not to mention the inherent danger of having people anywhere on site to rig up the purported 'pull' at such short notice and in such a timeframe!? Where and when in the world has there ever been a precedent for taking such a bizarre action to demolish a fire-damaged in record time - literally in the thick of such a monumental disaster!? C'mon, owners and authorities (and their insurers) simply do not mobilse the engineering experts demolition technicians and get in and authorise - much less physically-demolish fire/explosion-damaged buildings - on the very day of the trigger incident!?   FFS, on any other day, they wouldn't risk letting anybody within miles of an unprecedented volatile and ongoing disaster!   The only tenable explanation, is that the demolition of Building 7 was pre-meditated and pre-rigged!

What exactly do you think fire and rescue crews do???

They run INTO burning and collapsing buildings...
How else do you think 343 firefighters and paramedics and 72 police officers died at the scene???

And the planes hit the Towers between 8:46am and 10:28am.......Building 7 collapsed at 5:21PM.....7 hours is more than enough time to bring in the necessary equipment to contain the and manage the debris..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 10:46am:

Equitist wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 10:34am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 10:17am: Quote: My comments have only addressed the total failure of 3 steel framed buildings on the same day when it has never happened before or after without controlled demolition.....Building 7 was not even hit by an airplane and it collapsed.....No where has the collapse of building 7 been explained..... >:( Actually Phil, Building 7 was explained...but the conspiracy buffs won't accept it.. No it wasn't hit by a plane....but it WAS hit by a good sized chunk of flaming debris from one of the Towers, enough so that almost half of one side was torn open and set on fire.. There is a photo or several of the damage (or was) on the internet...If I can find then again, I'll post them here, or link them later on when I get some time.. And the infamous "pull the building" comment relating to #7 meant quite literally that....pulling it...with cables, so it would collapes into the existing damage area, instead of outwards onto unaffected buildings.. Seriously, do you accept that explanation given the nature and extent of the havoc and carnage on that day - not to mention the inherent danger of having people anywhere on site to rig up the purported 'pull' at such short notice and in such a timeframe!? Where and when in the world has there ever been a precedent for taking such a bizarre action to demolish a fire-damaged in record time - literally in the thick of such a monumental disaster!? C'mon, owners and authorities (and their insurers) simply do not mobilse the engineering experts demolition technicians and get in and authorise - much less physically-demolish fire/explosion-damaged buildings - on the very day of the trigger incident!?   FFS, on any other day, they wouldn't risk letting anybody within miles of an unprecedented volatile and ongoing disaster!   The only tenable explanation, is that the demolition of Building 7 was pre-meditated and pre-rigged! What exactly do you think fire and rescue crews do??? They run INTO burning and collapsing buildings... How else do you think 343 firefighters and paramedics and 72 police officers died at the scene??? And the planes hit the Towers between 8:46am and 10:28am.......Building 7 collapsed at 5:21PM.....7 hours is more than enough time to bring in the necessary equipment to contain the and manage the debris..

Er...ummnnn....According to Wiki.....


Quote:

The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m., less than an hour after being hit by the hijacked airliner, and at 10:28 a.m. the North Tower collapsed. Later that day, 7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:21 p.m. from fires that had started when the north tower collapsed.[3]

C'mon, Gizmo, there was so much heat and debris in the vicinity that it would have been logistically and physically-impossible for demolition crews and equipment to safely access, assess and rig-up Building 7 to demolish it in such a short timeframe...

I mean, it's not like the collapse of the twin towers blew the fires in Building 7 out - they were supposed to be the catalyst for them...

Fire crews needed to put the fires out first - before damage and demoltion assessment crews could get near them - and we know how long that takes from recent experiences of office building fires here in Oz...

Pfffttt...under 7 hours from fire to 'unplanned' controlled demolition...in the context and immediate vicinity and shock of this unprecedented man-made destruction and carnage - yer, right!?

Thy do you think the rigged the building with explosives??

These figures are for a 26 storey building..but they should give you an idea..

12 people just installing and rigging explosives for 24 days.
1237kg of explosives used in 4118 seperate charges on 9 levels.
4521 non-electric delay devices AND 10,972 metres of detonating cord..

And no one working in the building NOTICED??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 10:46am:

Equitist wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 10:34am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 10:17am: Quote: My comments have only addressed the total failure of 3 steel framed buildings on the same day when it has never happened before or after without controlled demolition.....Building 7 was not even hit by an airplane and it collapsed.....No where has the collapse of building 7 been explained..... >:( Actually Phil, Building 7 was explained...but the conspiracy buffs won't accept it.. No it wasn't hit by a plane....but it WAS hit by a good sized chunk of flaming debris from one of the Towers, enough so that almost half of one side was torn open and set on fire.. There is a photo or several of the damage (or was) on the internet...If I can find then again, I'll post them here, or link them later on when I get some time.. And the infamous "pull the building" comment relating to #7 meant quite literally that....pulling it...with cables, so it would collapes into the existing damage area, instead of outwards onto unaffected buildings.. Seriously, do you accept that explanation given the nature and extent of the havoc and carnage on that day - not to mention the inherent danger of having people anywhere on site to rig up the purported 'pull' at such short notice and in such a timeframe!? Where and when in the world has there ever been a precedent for taking such a bizarre action to demolish a fire-damaged in record time - literally in the thick of such a monumental disaster!? C'mon, owners and authorities (and their insurers) simply do not mobilse the engineering experts demolition technicians and get in and authorise - much less physically-demolish fire/explosion-damaged buildings - on the very day of the trigger incident!?   FFS, on any other day, they wouldn't risk letting anybody within miles of an unprecedented volatile and ongoing disaster!   The only tenable explanation, is that the demolition of Building 7 was pre-meditated and pre-rigged! What exactly do you think fire and rescue crews do??? They run INTO burning and collapsing buildings... How else do you think 343 firefighters and paramedics and 72 police officers died at the scene??? And the planes hit the Towers between 8:46am and 10:28am.......Building 7 collapsed at 5:21PM.....7 hours is more than enough time to bring in the necessary equipment to contain the and manage the debris..

Good theory.....however NO WHERE has this ever been claimed by the official explanation......The official explanation is that fire caused building 7 to collapse in on itself due to structural failure.....No one has ever claimed the building was brought down by pulling cables.....Can you please provide a link to where you obtained this information???

;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 11:06am:

Thy do you think the rigged the building with explosives?? These figures are for a 26 storey building..but they should give you an idea.. 12 people just installing and rigging explosives for 24 days. 1237kg of explosives used in 4118 seperate charges on 9 levels. 4521 non-electric delay devices AND 10,972 metres of detonating cord.. And no one working in the building NOTICED??

How do we really know who did and/or noticed what - since there was a fairly-comprehensive propaganda-cum-gag order placed on Americans - especially media outlets - in the wake of the events of that day!?

The only media that was allowed to be produced and disseminated was effectively-propaganda, which supported the US Administration's official lines of explanation and demonisation...

I, for one, do not take comfort in that!

Either way, your above post highlights just how impossible it would have been to safely engineer and rig the collapse of a 47 storey building - by cables and/or otherwise - within 7 hours of a fire, in the chaotic context and rubble of the immediate vicinity of the collapse of the other 2 larger buildings!

Seriously, it all defies belief!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center!?


Quote:

The original 7 World Trade Center was 47 stories tall, clad in red exterior masonry, and occupied a trapezoidal  footprint. An elevated walkway connected the building to the World Trade Center plaza. The building was situated above a Consolidated Edison (Con Ed) power substation, which imposed unique structural design constraints. When the building opened in 1987, Silverstein had difficulties attracting tenants. In 1988, Salomon Brothers signed a long-term lease, and became the main tenants of the building. On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris  when the nearby North Tower of the WTC collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm[1]  The collapse began when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of the east mechanical penthouse at 5:20:33 pm The new 7 World Trade Center construction began in 2002 and was completed in 2006. It is 52 stories tall and still situated above the Con Ed power substation. Built on a smaller footprint than the original to allow Greenwich Street to be restored from TriBeCa through the World Trade Center site and south to Battery Park, the new building is bounded by Greenwich, Vesey, Washington, and Barclay streets. A small park across Greenwich Street occupies space that was part of the original building's footprint. The current 7 World Trade Center's design places emphasis on safety, with a reinforced concrete core, wider stairways, and thicker fireproofing of steel columns. It also incorporates numerous environmentally friendly features. The building was the first commercial office building in New York City to receive the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, where it won a gold rating. The building was one of the first projects accepted to be part of the U.S. Green Building Council's Pilot Program for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design – Core and Shell Development (LEED-CS).[2]

Equitist wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 11:02am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 10:46am: Equitist wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 10:34am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 10:17am: Quote: My comments have only addressed the total failure of 3 steel framed buildings on the same day when it has never happened before or after without controlled demolition.....Building 7 was not even hit by an airplane and it collapsed.....No where has the collapse of building 7 been explained..... >:( Actually Phil, Building 7 was explained...but the conspiracy buffs won't accept it.. No it wasn't hit by a plane....but it WAS hit by a good sized chunk of flaming debris from one of the Towers, enough so that almost half of one side was torn open and set on fire.. There is a photo or several of the damage (or was) on the internet...If I can find then again, I'll post them here, or link them later on when I get some time.. And the infamous "pull the building" comment relating to #7 meant quite literally that....pulling it...with cables, so it would collapes into the existing damage area, instead of outwards onto unaffected buildings.. Seriously, do you accept that explanation given the nature and extent of the havoc and carnage on that day - not to mention the inherent danger of having people anywhere on site to rig up the purported 'pull' at such short notice and in such a timeframe!? Where and when in the world has there ever been a precedent for taking such a bizarre action to demolish a fire-damaged in record time - literally in the thick of such a monumental disaster!? C'mon, owners and authorities (and their insurers) simply do not mobilse the engineering experts demolition technicians and get in and authorise - much less physically-demolish fire/explosion-damaged buildings - on the very day of the trigger incident!?   FFS, on any other day, they wouldn't risk letting anybody within miles of an unprecedented volatile and ongoing disaster!   The only tenable explanation, is that the demolition of Building 7 was pre-meditated and pre-rigged! What exactly do you think fire and rescue crews do??? They run INTO burning and collapsing buildings... How else do you think 343 firefighters and paramedics and 72 police officers died at the scene??? And the planes hit the Towers between 8:46am and 10:28am.......Building 7 collapsed at 5:21PM.....7 hours is more than enough time to bring in the necessary equipment to contain the and manage the debris.. Er...ummnnn....According to Wiki..... [quote]The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m., less than an hour after being hit by the hijacked airliner, and at 10:28 a.m. the North Tower collapsed. Later that day, 7 World Trade Center collapsed at 5:21 p.m. from fires that had started when the north tower collapsed.[3]

C'mon, Gizmo, there was so much heat and debris in the vicinity that it would have been logistically and physically-impossible for demolition crews and equipment to safely access, assess and rig-up Building 7 to demolish it in such a short timeframe...

I mean, it's not like the collapse of the twin towers blew the fires in Building 7 out - they were supposed to be the catalyst for them...

Fire crews needed to put the fires out first - before damage and demoltion assessment crews could get near them - and we know how long that takes from recent experiences of office building fires here in Oz...

Pfffttt...under 7 hours from fire to 'unplanned' controlled demolition...in the context and immediate vicinity and shock of this unprecedented man-made destruction and carnage - yer, right!?

[/quote]

It wasn't a 'controlled demolition'...they attempted (sucessfully) to influence the direction of the impending collapse...An entirely different thing..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 11:22am:

It wasn't a 'controlled demolition'...they attempted (sucessfully) to influence the direction of the impending collapse...An entirely different thing..

Yer, right - the fires were still burning throughout the afternoon (purportedly largely due to lack of water pressure) and the first visible sign of the "buckle" was supposed have occurred at level 13, almost-immediately (i.e. about half a minute) before the actual collapse...

Seriously, just how did they assess, engineer and implement anything of the sort you are suggesting, for this flaming 47-storey building, in the context of time, logistical and physical constraints of the day!?

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Here is the site that claims cables pulled WTC # 7.....It seams strange that no where does it show building # 7 collapsing or how the excavators and cables where attached with no one ever seeing them….I suggest people read the official explanation and make up their own minds…..The cable pulling theory was not in any of the official reports that where commissioned by the American Government and no where in any official report was any explanation given for the collapse of Building # 7 accept for fire weakening the structure…..The cable pulling was a theory put forward after the fact but never claimed in any official report…..It can be only be considered as a theory which is not supported by the visual evidence or official reports…..How building # 7 collapsed has never been explained by the American Government???

;)

Not contradictory at all???

Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview.

9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why?

There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the firemen out.

::)

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

As Phil has rightfully pointed out, there are many conflicting theories and practically-impossible explanations for the collapse of Building 7 on that day - but the bizarre fact remains that: the forensic evidence obtained by the US Administration in the course of its own inquiries has been cynically-withheld from us to date...

Those of you whom are not disturbed by all of this, are wantonly kidding yourselves, as to the implications of such information being withheld!

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 11:30am:

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm Here is the site that claims cables pulled WTC # 7.....It seams strange that no where does it show building # 7 collapsing or how the excavators and cables where attached with no one ever seeing them….I suggest people read the official explanation and make up their own minds…..The cable pulling theory was not in any of the official reports that where commissioned by the American Government and no where in any official report was any explanation given for the collapse of Building # 7 accept for fire weakening the structure…..The cable pulling was a theory put forward after the fact but never claimed in any official report…..It can be only be considered as a theory which is not supported by the visual evidence or official reports…..How building # 7 collapsed has never been explained by the American Government??? ;) Not contradictory at all??? Maybe none of these things by themselves mean anything but together it means there is no case. The person who said "Pull" and started this cascade later clarified. Fireman use the word "Pull" to describe getting out of a building and the person who made the order was not Silverstein according to the same first interview. 9/11 conspiracy sites are being dishonest. You have to ask yourself why? There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the firemen out. ::) http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Phil I have found 1 photo of Building 7 damage, so far...There's a better one I found a while ago, from a different angle (other side perhaps), not so much smoke...but it should give some indication of the damage..

http://www.debunking911.com/wtcc.jpg

Quote:

I, for one, do not take comfort in that! Either way, your above post highlights just how impossible it would have been to safely engineer and rig the collapse of a 47 storey building - by cables and/or otherwise - within 7 hours of a fire, in the chaotic context and rubble of the immediate vicinity of the collapse of the other 2 larger buildings! Seriously, it all defies belief!

Actually Thy, my post highlights how difficult it would have been for the 'mysterious black ops' teams to rig the buildings in advance 'premeditated' 'false flag' operation..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 1:21pm:

Quote: I, for one, do not take comfort in that! Either way, your above post highlights just how impossible it would have been to safely engineer and rig the collapse of a 47 storey building - by cables and/or otherwise - within 7 hours of a fire, in the chaotic context and rubble of the immediate vicinity of the collapse of the other 2 larger buildings! Seriously, it all defies belief! Actually Thy, my post highlights how difficult it would have been for the 'mysterious black ops' teams to rig the buildings in advance 'premeditated' 'false flag' operation..

Who knows...the fact remains that conspiracy theories only get traction because the US Government has failed to provide any answers???

http://www.rense.com/general64/moss.htm

http://www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=270:who-did-911-obl-bush-or-mossad-the-evidences&catid=58:the-911-event&Itemid=115

http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm

http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/mossad-agents-911.htm

NORAD -  June 1st 2001, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff issues an instruction that "in the event of a aircraft piracy (hijacking), the National Military Commancd Center (NMCC) will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC, will with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."

Basically, this means that just before 9/11 the decision to intercept and shoot down hijacked planes was taken away from NORAD and given to Donald Rumsfeld.

The FEMA report sought to explain how the building collapsed but could only conclude:

“The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time.”


::)

philperth2010 wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 1:45pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 1:21pm: Quote: I, for one, do not take comfort in that! Either way, your above post highlights just how impossible it would have been to safely engineer and rig the collapse of a 47 storey building - by cables and/or otherwise - within 7 hours of a fire, in the chaotic context and rubble of the immediate vicinity of the collapse of the other 2 larger buildings! Seriously, it all defies belief! Actually Thy, my post highlights how difficult it would have been for the 'mysterious black ops' teams to rig the buildings in advance 'premeditated' 'false flag' operation.. Who knows...the fact remains that conspiracy theories only get traction because the US Government has failed to provide any answers??? http://www.rense.com/general64/moss.htm http://www.ascertainthetruth.com/att/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=270:who-did-911-obl-bush-or-mossad-the-evidences&catid=58:the-911-event&Itemid=115 http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/mossad-agents-911.htm NORAD -  June 1st 2001, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff issues an instruction that "in the event of a aircraft piracy (hijacking), the National Military Commancd Center (NMCC) will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC, will with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." Basically, this means that just before 9/11 the decision to intercept and shoot down hijacked planes was taken away from NORAD and given to Donald Rumsfeld.

I think it was more that the assorted US departments took the time to hold an investigation and compare notes, that made the conspiracy theories so long lived.

The theories started appearing pretty fast...the first book on the 'elaborate government involvement' theory was published 6 months afterwards..Even going flat-out...writing editing and printing a book is going to take at least 3 months.

And I don't believe the 'Airforce was stood down' thing and never have...