the attacks on sept 11th were differennt because condi recieved a report detailing the attack. not a vague warning of some clown wanting to blow up something somewhere, but a detail of how they would attack and who was behind it (osama...you know....the guy that had the u.s.s. cole bombed). i guess they thought he was bluffing
and whats going to be the excuse next time? how will you staunchly defend bush when america is attacked again?
Originally posted by PVS
the attacks on sept 11th were differennt because condi recieved a report detailing the attack. not a vague warning of some clown wanting to blow up something somewhere, but a detail of how they would attack and who was behind it (osama...you know....the guy that had the u.s.s. cole bombed). i guess they thought he was bluffing
many of the threats given on the daily threat assessment are specific also...doesn't mean they actually materialise
the problem being that if you acted on every single threat then you really would be unable to continue as normal...just look at the UK in the days after the London bombings...every single bag left on a train led to stations being shut down and streets being evacuated
many people complain about the erosion of civil liberties because of attempts to tackle terrorism...either you take carry out every measure possible to stop it (which is alot more than they are doing now and would mean really stringent restrictions on liberty) or you try and keep the overall freedom of society and risk more attacks
but i find it quite ironic that the same people who are dead against any form of erosion of civil liberties are the same people who will shout the loudest when attacks occur with calls of "not enough was done"
yeah...not enough was done because you wouldn't let them do enough
i dont have the answers but i think that its testament to the intelligence services that there haven't been more attacks in the US since sept 11th
— Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning.
Those pictures are fakes. This was debunked by eyewitnesses.
—When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.
This is debunked by firemen inside the lobby of the tower. Flames were racing down the elevator shafts. The firemen were there longer than 16 minutes after the plane struck.
—The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the fires could have been easily controlled.
So, the fire did not ignite carpets, computers, desks or chairs?
—FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.
No firemen are under gag orders. This is contradicted by numerous FDNY firemen.
—Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."
Because this was the first time a plane that large had ever struck a skyscraper. They fire chiefs and engineers said very plainly they had no idea what to expect.
— Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
No skyscraper had ever been struck by a transcontinental airliner before either
— The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.
Debunked by every fireman on the scene. The fires in WTC were quite large and they burned for hours.
— WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
Collapsed in less than 10 seconds? The WTC 7 collapsed some 9 hours after the collapse of the two towers. WTC 7 was also damaged by the debris from the collapse of the two towers.
— WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.
— In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
Yes, Larry Silverstein DID say that. At the time, engineers did not know that the building would collapse, but they did know it posed a danger.
— It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
And why are other contributing fuels to the fires being ignored.
So how about debating each point in your own words, Deano?
— Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning.
[B] Those pictures are fakes. This was debunked by eyewitnesses.
i woudnt know if they are fakes, if they are then fair enough
—When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.
This is debunked by firemen inside the lobby of the tower. Flames were racing down the elevator shafts. The firemen were there longer than 16 minutes after the plane struck.
other firefigheter stated that the fires were under control and that they could put them out, i have a link where u can listen to an audio tape of the firemen in the towers at the time who said this. i will find it out for you
—The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the fires could have been easily controlled.
So, the fire did not ignite carpets, computers, desks or chairs?
harldy enough to bring down the building in that short space of time
—FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.
No firemen are under gag orders. This is contradicted by numerous FDNY firemen.
in fact many firefighters were told to keep quiet, and they had said it thereself, only the firefighters that demolish the official version were told to keep quiet
—Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."
Because this was the first time a plane that large had ever struck a skyscraper. They fire chiefs and engineers said very plainly they had no idea what to expect.
the plane would of damaged the top half of the towers, but it would not of caused it all to crash to the ground
— Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
No skyscraper had ever been struck by a transcontinental airliner before either
fire is still fire, no matter what hits it,
— The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.
Debunked by every fireman on the scene. The fires in WTC were quite large and they burned for hours.
madrid building burned for a week without collapsing, if the wtc did burn for hours it still shoudnt of collapsed, thats the whole point of the buildings
— WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
Collapsed in less than 10 seconds? The WTC 7 collapsed some 9 hours after the collapse of the two towers. WTC 7 was also damaged by the debris from the collapse of the two towers.
Still no way it would of collapsed, it only sustained mininmun damage
— WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.
— In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
Yes, Larry Silverstein DID say that. At the time, engineers did not know that the building would collapse, but they did know it posed a danger.
you still havent acknowledged the fact that wtc 5 and 6 had raging fires and did not collapse despite thinner steel beams
— It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
And why are other contributing fuels to the fires being ignored.
There is no evidence that, even at their hottest immediately after the impacts, the fires approached the 700 degrees C required to significantly soften steel. Such temperatures would have caused regions of the building to glow red hot in broad daylight. The oxygen-starved fires likely remained below 400 degrees C, and would be harmless to the steel frame even in the absence of insulation. There is no evidence that the fires ever damaged the core structures. Note that softening of steel by high temperatures is reversible, and that steel is a good conductor of heat. If any structural steel had lost strength in the first minutes of the fires, it would have regained most of it as the fires cooled after consuming the jet fuel.
there you go
oh and plus could you explain these
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3259
http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/twintowers.html
AUDIO TAPE FROM FIREFIGHTER
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm
Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines." The widow of Chief Palmer was allowed to hear the tape before excerpts were released by the Times. She said:
I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without fear, and selflessly.
Originally posted by Deano
[B]— Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning.[B] Those pictures are fakes. This was debunked by eyewitnesses.
i woudnt know if they are fakes, if they are then fair enough—When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.
This is debunked by firemen inside the lobby of the tower. Flames were racing down the elevator shafts. The firemen were there longer than 16 minutes after the plane struck.
other firefigheter stated that the fires were under control and that they could put them out, i have a link where u can listen to an audio tape of the firemen in the towers at the time who said this. i will find it out for youThe audio is from the beginning, not just before the towers collapsed. Hell, the film 9/11 showed that same thing.
—The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the fires could have been easily controlled.
So, the fire did not ignite carpets, computers, desks or chairs?
harldy enough to bring down the building in that short space of timeThis was in combination with the jet fuel. Not to mention, there were other sources of fuel within the building.
—FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.
No firemen are under gag orders. This is contradicted by numerous FDNY firemen.
in fact many firefighters were told to keep quiet, and they had said it thereself, only the firefighters that demolish the official version were told to keep quietI know personally six firemen who were on the scene. One is a captain. There is no gag order on the firemen.
—Even the flawed 9/11 Commission Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible."
Because this was the first time a plane that large had ever struck a skyscraper. They fire chiefs and engineers said very plainly they had no idea what to expect.
the plane would of damaged the top half of the towers, but it would not of caused it all to crash to the groundThe second plane hit more in the middle than the top. Both planes would have taken out supports for the building. The top part of a building like the twin towers could collapse the whole skyscraper. They were built that way.
— Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
No skyscraper had ever been struck by a transcontinental airliner before either
fire is still fire, no matter what hits it,But you're ignoring the impact stress on the building. You're right that fire alone would not collapse the building, you are complately ignoring that a rather large object slammed into the building. Intense heat, combined with already weak support could easily collapse the building.
— The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.
Debunked by every fireman on the scene. The fires in WTC were quite large and they burned for hours.
madrid building burned for a week without collapsing, if the wtc did burn for hours it still shoudnt of collapsed, thats the whole point of the buildingsThe building was damaged by debris from the first two collapses. Once again the fire contributed to, but was not the cause of the collapse.
— WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
Collapsed in less than 10 seconds? The WTC 7 collapsed some 9 hours after the collapse of the two towers. WTC 7 was also damaged by the debris from the collapse of the two towers.
Still no way it would of collapsed, it only sustained mininmun damageDefine minimum damage. The firemen at the scene were worried about collapse immediately. The building lasted longer than expected.
— WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.
— In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, told the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 that "may be the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
Yes, Larry Silverstein DID say that. At the time, engineers did not know that the building would collapse, but they did know it posed a danger.
you still havent acknowledged the fact that wtc 5 and 6 had raging fires and did not collapse despite thinner steel beamsWTC 5 and 6 did not have raging fires AND a weakened support structure.
— It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
And why are other contributing fuels to the fires being ignored.
There is no evidence that, even at their hottest immediately after the impacts, the fires approached the 700 degrees C required to significantly soften steel. Such temperatures would have caused regions of the building to glow red hot in broad daylight. The oxygen-starved fires likely remained below 400 degrees C, and would be harmless to the steel frame even in the absence of insulation. There is no evidence that the fires ever damaged the core structures. Note that softening of steel by high temperatures is reversible, and that steel is a good conductor of heat. If any structural steel had lost strength in the first minutes of the fires, it would have regained most of it as the fires cooled after consuming the jet fuel.
The popular mechanics article says it all. I don't know how much the towers weighed, but the softened steel would lose its support strength and warp. Even after the beams cooled the pressures exerted on them could easily cause collapse when warped. Your article offers no mention to the weight of the building contributing to the collapse. As far as burning red hot, there would be no way to tell from all of the smoke. The plane did take out some of the support beams in the building. Even without fire, the building would be severly weakened.
there you go
oh and plus could you explain these
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3259
http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/wtc/twintowers.htmlAUDIO TAPE FROM FIREFIGHTER
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm
Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines." The widow of Chief Palmer was allowed to hear the tape before excerpts were released by the Times. She said:
I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without fear, and selflessly.
Originally posted by jaden101
but i find it quite ironic that the same people who are dead against any form of erosion of civil liberties are the same people who will shout the loudest when attacks occur with calls of "not enough was done"
spoken like a real tool.
i say they should follow up on intelligence GIVEN to them. wtf does that have to do with taking away civil liberties? nothing. but at least you got to make another mindless "DAMN LIBERALS!!!" comment, so it was all worth it, even if it made no sense 😬
oh and plus could you explain these
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3259
William Rodriguez? I cannot find that name in any news article except for those articles on conspiracy theory websites. If he saved many people, he would have had at least one mainstream article written about him.
http://911research.wtc7.net/materia...twintowers.html
The Towers Were Designed to Survive Large Jet Collisions
This is false. Even the designers of the WTC have stated that they never envisioned a jetliner crashing into the buildings.
Vertical Collapses Indicate Demolition
The towers were designed to collapse vertically if compromised. The designers have stated this also.
The Towers Exploded
There is no mention of the the pressures and air pockets with in the buildings. The air has to escape. The plumbs of escaping air looks just like this.
The Towers Were Pulverized and Shredded in the Air
The author is mistaken. The pressure of the bulding collapsing on itself could turn the concrete into dust.
The Towers' Tops Fell Without Resistance
An onject falling from the top off the tower would hit the ground in less than 15 seconds. Once again, the author makes no mention of the weakened structure cause by impact. He also fails to mention the groundquake that was the major contributor to the second tower falling.
AUDIO TAPE FROM FIREFIGHTER
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm
Seven minutes before the collapse, battalion chief Palmer is heard to say "Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines." The widow of Chief Palmer was allowed to hear the tape before excerpts were released by the Times. She said:
I didn't hear fear, I didn't hear panic. When the tape is made public to the world, people will hear that they all went about their jobs without fear, and selflessly.
Of course the firefighters went about their business. They had no idea the tower was going to collapse. There is not one time in history that a transcontinental airliner crashed into a skyscraper. Even engineers had no idea what would happen. If you really want to nitpick, the greatest fear about the WTC towers was the leaning and falling over of the towers. Engineers constructed the towers to avoid this action.
but i find it quite ironic that the same people who are dead against any form of erosion of civil liberties are the same people who will shout the loudest when attacks occur with calls of "not enough was done"
spoken like a real tool.
i say they should follow up on intelligence GIVEN to them. wtf does that have to do with taking away civil liberties? nothing. but at least you got to make another mindless "DAMN LIBERALS!!!" comment, so it was all worth it, even if it made no sense erm
PVS, this is very true of some people. I think civil liberties needs to be established before an argument of rhetoric breaks out. If investigating an individual's internet useage without a warrant prevents an attack, is that ok in your book? If the government must obtain a warrant, and the attack occurs because the government is unable to obtain said warrant, is that ok to you? I'm not arguing with you, but it helps if I understand exactly which side you of the debate you are on.
At this point, i am convinced that the current administration was involved and that bush was happier than a pig in shit when those planes hit. I'm also pretty sure that this goes far beyond him and dates as far back as the reagan administration. Has anyone noticed that whenever a government scandal/tragedy erupts in which many people die the exact same people are always involved? It's always one of the bushes, frank carlucci, John Poindexter, John Negroponte, Olliver North, Otto Reich, the Saudis, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Michael Ladine, John Major, Barbara Bodine, G. Gordon Liddy, and James Baker.
most of the individuals are part of a group called Project for a New American Century which advocates de facto global domination by the united states through huge military spending, intimidation, and completion of Ronald Reagan's star wars wet dream.
These people's past and current crimes range from forgery (michael Ladine-PNAC member and author of those Niger yellow cake uranium papers that got is into iraq), to facilitation of genocide and mass murder (Otto Reich, John Poindexter, John Negroponte), to planning to install martial law (Olliver North).
Not to get too much into the whole "Illuminati" conspiracy theory deal...but I'm starting to believe that their might have been some foul play going on. You all ever heard of the saying.."to every imaginary story..there is a grain of truth" There definately seems to be more than meets the eye with 9/11.
Originally posted by PVS
spoken like a real tool.
i say they should follow up on intelligence GIVEN to them. wtf does that have to do with taking away civil liberties? nothing. but at least you got to make another mindless "DAMN LIBERALS!!!" comment, so it was all worth it, even if it made no sense 😬
do you need to be an ******* 24/7 or is unintentional?
lets put it quite simply so you can understand it this time
the same people who say not enough is being done are the same people who complain when things are done
here is another example of the hypocritical bitching that spews out of those same people mouths
post 9/11 the US governement was criticised for trying to cover up threats to the US...so they had a policy of keeping the public informed about potential threats...and then they were criticised by the same people for scaremongering
then its the same people who are against the war in iraq but continually bleat like sheep about other dictatorships....for one war and against another...you cant get more hypocritical than that
and did i even mention the word liberals?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Not to get too much into the whole "Illuminati" conspiracy theory deal...but I'm starting to believe that their might have been some foul play going on. You all ever heard of the saying.."to every imaginary story..there is a grain of truth" There definately seems to be more than meets the eye with 9/11.
of course there is, it was the same with the oklahoma bombing. its all part of the plan to take our freedoms away..and we are allowing it to happen and its really sad. i guarentee there will be another massive event in the future which will bring about the one world goverment
once you see through there game its easy to understand why these things happen..we gotta fight it and stop arguing because its gonna happen
and we are allowing it to happen and its really sad
please tell me what freedoms you've had taken away...cause as far as im aware...i haven't had any taken away
and also
yes...it really makes economic sense to kill off thousands of your countries financial experts and destroy financial companies...i can see how the massive drop in share prices would really benefit everyone who has huge shares in companies...that'll be the same people who are supposedly involved in the conpiracy
what?
"He who sacrifices freedom for security is neither free nor secure."
increasingly in a surveillance
RFID tags
heres a list i found
http://www.aclunc.org/911/chronology.html
http://www.law.virginia.edu/home2002/html/news/2002_fall/civilliberties.htm
Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
PVS, this is very true of some people. I think civil liberties needs to be established before an argument of rhetoric breaks out. If investigating an individual's internet useage without a warrant prevents an attack, is that ok in your book? If the government must obtain a warrant, and the attack occurs because the government is unable to obtain said warrant, is that ok to you? I'm not arguing with you, but it helps if I understand exactly which side you of the debate you are on.
oh man thats a heavy question😖
but thanks for putting asking me politely rather than acting in an insulting manner like some people who shall remain nameless.
*cracks knuckles* here we go
ok, first thing, the 9-11 hijackers were not U.S. citizens. they posses ed fake i.d.'s, which is why i had to go through so much bullshit in getting my new license. not that im complaining, and it certainly didnt make me feel like my liberties were being stripped, just a necessary hassle. thats a step in the right direction. point is, since when do the authorities need a warrant to investigate illegal aliens? they never did. so why does such power to spy and arrest extend to legal citizens?
second, airport/railway screenings. no problem at all.
i dont feel that rights are being infringed upon by assuring that
nobody is carrying a weapon. if someone cant deal with it,
they can simply choose not to travel.
next, i wish that the same government that invented nuclear weapons took equal time in inventing a reliable device to detect them, but i guess thats asking too much. so for their reckless lack of foresight, we need reliable screening at boarders, especially nyc. a liberty we must let go unfortunately,
since our government lacks the sense of decency and responsibility to solve the problem in the logical manner, which i'll state later.
as for other bombs, same thing.
we need screening at boarders. the bad thing about this is that law enforcement can use this screening to enforce unrelated laws. an example would be a dog sniffing out a joint and you being arrested for a crime having nothing to do with terrorism. so a close eye needs to be kept on screening methods, to make sure time and recourses are not being wasted and abused.
i just picture some hippie being frisked and handcuffed while a truckload of t.n.t. drives by. so yeah, a liberty we need to sacrifice, but with extreme scrutiny and caution.
unfortunately, as is always the case with our functionless government, terrorists can freely cross the u.s. mexico boarder without a care in the world due to minimal boarder patrol and screening devices. so much for that, huh?
but what would be the overall solution? the solution would be to stop f***ing with brown people. the best way to stop terrorism is at the source. not through bombing and killing, but through rebuilding of the trust and admiration we once had and then abused the shit out of. gain the trust of the people and you put the recruitment to a halt. bush would twist this around and view it as "meeting the terrorist's demands", but thats a warp in logic. fundamentalist wackos in charge of al quaida and other organisations exploit
the misery of others. for example the way in which our government betrayed the people of afghanistan following the fall of the u.s.s.r.
thats how terrorists are created. its not a product of religion or some innate evil, but a product of our own actions, or lack of. so long as our government keeps its policy of exploiting, killing, betraying, and then neglecting these people, there will always be terrorists.
it takes far more than a "hatred of freedom©" to strap a bomb to yourself and kill everyone around you including yourself. im sure you know this, but many are so deluded that they think its as simple and spiteful as burning a flag out of "jealousy".
for example the way in which our government betrayed the people of afghanistan following the fall of the u.s.s.r.
bingo...finally someone actually agrees with me on this matter...i'm really surprised its you though PVS
this has been a huge reason for the easy rise of al qaeda but it wasn't the instigation of it which actually happened in algeria, somalia and surprisingly eritrea
it was after these countries decided to tackle them after several assassinations of politicians that afghanistan and the mujahadeen, headed up by osama bin laden who was a fund raiser, linked with al qaeda and their strength and ideology of forcing western interests out of what they refer to as the land of two holy places (saudi arabia)
as well as forcing a political standpoint of living under sharia islamic law