Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

9/11 Attacks

Options
1…2425272930…36

Comments

  • Options
    #782
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,640 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ihateclowns11 wrote: »
    Ok then what about building number 7,no plane hit it and it just collapsed for no reason,explain that one.

    The damage caused by the debris from the other two towers hitting it. While the debris didn't cause as much damage to WTC7 as the planes did to the towers, internal fires burned for longer. Again, fireproofing is applied to the steel to ensure that it takes a certain amount of time for the fire to begin to weaken the steel, in order to give enough time for the building to be safely evacuated and to attempt to extinguish the fire. But if the fireproofing is damaged, that time is reduced. Fires in WTC7 burned for something like 7 hours, and little attempt was made to extinguish the fires as the building had been evacuated and rescue efforts were focused elsewhere.

    So once the fire weakened the column on floor 13, which was a major structural column, that caused a chain reaction throughout the building where more loading and directional forces were applied to beams and columns which were not designed to carry those loads. These members then failed, causing even more loading and directional forces to be applied to other members, causing the building to collapse.

    As more and more loads and forces are applied to members (eg. Column A fails so Column B has to compensate. B fails so Column C then has to compensate for A and B) the remaining members aren't able to offer as much resistance, causing a quick collapse. Not at free fall speed though. The exact time it took for the building to collapse cannot properly been established as I don't think there was a good enough shot of the building collapsing. Coupled with the fact that due to the rising debris and dust cloud, it would be difficult to establish when the collapse stopped, plus the internal collapse would have happened before the kink appeared in the penthouse roof


  • Options
    #783
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Bush needed fear to sway public opinion, not true?
    Why did they delay and block the commission actually sitting down to work and Bush standing before it? Because it was feared that it would affect his re-election chances.
    This was a philosopher in the 1960's writing about American Foreign Policy:
    The compulsion to do good is an innate American trait. Only North Americans seem to believe that they always should, may, and actually can choose somebody with whom to share their blessings. Ultimately this attitude leads to bombing people into the acceptance of gifts. Ivan Illich

    America was invading Afghanistan two months after 9-11 with public opinion cheering them on and they used 'terror' as a reason and they had to get in there quick because they couldn't risk 'unknown' truths about 9-11 coming out. They went on to use the principle of 'terror' to invade Iraq. it wouldn't be the first time that aggression was instigated and maintained by the creation of a 'boogey man'
    What did Blair have to do to allow him to ride shotgun in the invasion of Iraq? he had to convince his people that WMD's existed so evidence of that was manufactured. There are some who want Blair as a war crimminal, Blairs justification isn't too far away from what Illich was talking about.


  • Options
    #784
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    America was invading Afghanistan two months after 9-11 with public opinion cheering them on and they used 'terror' as a reason

    Unsurprisingly - given that it was the factual reason. Any evidence that the US wanted to invade Afghanistan prior to this?
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    and they had to get in there quick because they couldn't risk 'unknown' truths about 9-11 coming out.

    Not really. There was the small matter of the guy who initiated 9/11 potentially absconding elsewhere.


  • Options
    #785
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    There was the small matter of the guy who initiated 9/11 potentially absconding elsewhere.

    And who is supplying the evidence about where he is?
    Oh wait, the same people, who where convinced, indeed even had proof that Saddam had WMD's. And did he?
    Didn't matter where they went into the region, they just had to get in there and control it. Doesn't matter how many bodybags come home, how difficult it is, as long as they have a reason to be in there.
    Al Qeada/Saddam are the 'Boogey Men' and there will be more created.

    One man's Weapon Of Mass Destruction is another man's Nuclear Detterent, see what they did there?


  • Options
    #786
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    And who is supplying the evidence about where he is?
    Oh wait, the same people, who where convinced, indeed even had proof that Saddam had WMD's.

    Who did you want to provide them with intelligence - tripadvisor?
    AS it turned out - they weren't so good at finding Bin Laden either - but no-one disputes he was there when they chose to invade Afghanistan - least of all the Taliban - who were probably the best placed to know.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    One man's Weapon Of Mass Destruction is another man's Nuclear Detterent, see what they did there?

    Something to do with a typo?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #787
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    They will find Bin Laden when it suits them, not before.
    I suppose you think the whole WMD affront to International Law was just an accident Alastair?
    Sure we'll all turn up our heating and have a cozy guiltfree nap.


  • Options
    #788
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    They will find Bin Laden when it suits them, not before.
    I suppose you think the whole WMD affront to International Law was just an accident Alastair?
    Sure we'll all turn up our heating and have a cozy guiltfree nap.

    You really are quite the man for straw man arguments, aren't you?

    WMD have nothing to do with Bin Laden. He was in the country that they invaded to try and kill him, they do keep trying to kill the man, and it has nothing to do with my rad setting or naps.


  • Options
    #789
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    You really are quite the man for straw man arguments, aren't you?
    You really love trying to depict posters on here as being the only ones with their opinions, it's a familar ploy of those with no counterargument.
    I am just echoing the arguments of a whole raft of more informed people around the world. But keep the jibes up if it insulates you from asking real questions. I daresay you will deflect answering the ones below too, but here goes anyway.


    1. What was the key thing Tony Blair had to do to enable Britian to join the crusade against Iraq?
    2. Do you think intelligence was manipulated in that or not?
    3. In your opinion is he guilty of a crime?
    4. Was America right in International law to invade Iraq?


  • Options
    #790
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You really love trying to depict posters on here as being the only ones with their opinions, it's a familar ploy of those with no counterargument.
    I am just echoing the arguments of a whole raft of more informed people around the world. But keep the jibes up if it insulates you from asking real questions. I daresay you will deflect answering the ones below too, but here goes anyway.


    1. What was the key thing Tony Blair had to do to enable Britian to join the crusade against Iraq?
    2. Do you think intelligence was manipulated in that or not?
    3. In your opinion is he guilty of a crime?
    4. Was America right in International law to invade Iraq?

    Respectfully this thread is about 9/11 and not the invasion of Iraq. Start you own thread, and quit dragging us off on this tangent.


  • Options
    #791
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Respectfully this thread is about 9/11 and not the invasion of Iraq. Start you own thread, and quit dragging us off on this tangent.
    What's the first thing thats looked for in a murder scenario....motive?
    I was just attempting to show that sinsiter motives may have been involved in 9-11, hence an examination of what those motives achieved, how is that irrelevant or inadmissable, your honour?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #792
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,640 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    While I disagree that 9/11 was organised and planned by the US government, I do believe they may have used the situation to their advantage. But I do think some of Happyman's points are relevant to the thread


  • Options
    #793
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    What's the first thing thats looked for in a murder scenario....motive?
    I was just attempting to show that sinsiter motives may have been involved in 9-11, hence an examination of what those motives achieved, how is that irrelevant or inadmissable, your honour?

    Okay riddle me this batman, if the motive was using 9/11 as justification for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan why blame a selection of Saudi, Egyptian and Pakistanis for the attack?


  • Options
    #794
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    While I disagree that 9/11 was organised and planned by the US government, I do believe they may have used the situation to their advantage.

    No doubt about that - but there's nothing to suggest that a notional inside job relating to 9/11 would have set up Iraq for a fall - it had absolutely nothing to do with them, and no-one pretended it did.

    Dragging the discussion off into one of the legitimacy of the Iraq invasion is well off topic.


  • Options
    #795
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    paddyirishman85 wrote: »
    I do believe they may have used the situation to their advantage.

    My point is quite simple, the Commission FAILED to find out conclusively about 'prior knowledge' and who knew what. If you even suspect negilience or incompetence, never mind mercenary or sinister intent, then it is imperitave that you exhasut all the avenues of investigation available to achieve the following surely?
    The Commission's mandate is to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future.

    That is a yes or no answer btw.

    They didn't prosecute all the evidence and witnesses (Shaffer and the 4 other Intelligence personnel that Alastair claims was just a 'distraction') therefore my answer to the above is No.


  • Options
    #796
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Okay riddle me this batman, if the motive was using 9/11 as justification for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan why blame a selection of Saudi, Egyptian and Pakistanis for the attack?

    Who do you think most Americans think the threat is coming from? A particular nationality or a creed?
    What did that guy try to burn at the weekend, what do they not want to open near Ground Zero again?


  • Options
    #797
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »

    Dragging the discussion off into one of the legitimacy of the Iraq invasion is well off topic.

    Why is that Alastair? Because we might find a motive? Find the motive, find the killer is standard proceedure I would have thought.


  • Options
    #798
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Who do you think most Americans think the threat is coming from? A particular nationality or a creed?
    What did that guy try to burn at the weekend, what do they not want to open near Ground Zero again?

    What watery nonsense.

    There's a lot more Muslims in Malaysia than Iraq - and I don't see anyone invading there on the back of 9/11. Saddam ran a secular Ba'athist dictatorship - about as far removed from any kind of Islamic fundamentalism as you'd find in the ME.


  • Options
    #799
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Why is that Alastair? Because we might find a motive? Find the motive, find the killer is standard proceedure I would have thought.

    No - because it's nothing to do with 9/11. The 'killer' was sitting far away in Afghanistan - suspiciously devoid of any Iraqi followers. The motive was vengeance for 9/11.


  • Options
    #800
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    What watery nonsense.

    There's a lot more Muslims in Malaysia than Iraq - and I don't see anyone invading there on the back of 9/11. Saddam ran a secular Ba'athist dictatorship - about as far removed from any kind of Islamic fundamentalism as you'd find in the ME.

    I daresay the people who 'possibly' orchestrated or manipulated 9-11 give a rats arse if they were Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Born Again Christians or Mormons, what I'm saying is that they needed to create a 'boogey man' and they demonstrably have created one. Muslims.
    Nothing new in that, has been done before the world over 'Communists', 'Jews', 'Kurds', 'Hutu's' 'Tutsis' etc etc nothing new there then.


  • Options
    #801
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I daresay the people who 'possibly' orchestrated or manipulated 9-11 give a rats arse if they were Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Born Again Christians or Mormons, what I'm saying is that they needed to create a 'boogey man' and they demonstrably have created one. Muslims.
    Nothing new in that, has been done before the world over 'Communists', 'Jews', 'Kurds', 'Hutu's' 'Tutsis' etc etc nothing new there then.
    You mean boogeymen like the evil global conspiracy?

    Certainly no one profiting off that either....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #802
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    King Mob wrote: »
    You mean boogeymen like the evil global conspiracy?

    Certainly no one profiting off that either....

    You missed the memo - top CT boogyman is 'the man'. He's behind every door and out to get us all! Boogy Boo!


  • Options
    #803
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Who do you think most Americans think the threat is coming from? A particular nationality or a creed?
    What did that guy try to burn at the weekend, what do they not want to open near Ground Zero again?

    Wow you're taking this non sequitur and running with it aren't you?


  • Options
    #804
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    King Mob wrote: »
    You mean boogeymen like the evil global conspiracy?

    Yes, good example.


  • Options
    #805
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    I do love a groundless faith-based world view. It simplifies so much that's awkward in life.


  • Options
    #806
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Yes, good example.
    So not seeing any issue with berating the use of scapegoats and boogeymen by people you are accusing of being boogeymen?


  • Options
    #807
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    You missed the memo - top CT boogyman is 'the man'. He's behind every door and out to get us all! Boogy Boo!

    It's always tough when your belief system and unquestioning faith can't answer the questions any more, isn't it?
    Enjoy your 'nap'.


  • Options
    #808
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    King Mob wrote: »
    So not seeing any issue with berating the use of scapegoats and boogeymen by people you are accusing of being boogeymen?

    Wot?


  • Options
    #809
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Wot?
    How is it you have no problem doing the same thing (creating scapegoats and boogeymen) that you are accusing "Them" of doing?

    Not strike as a little hypocritical?


  • Options
    #810
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Wow you're taking this non sequitur and running with it aren't you?

    I think you might need to refresh what you understand 'Non Sequitur' to mean


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #811
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    King Mob wrote: »
    How is it you have no problem doing the same thing (creating scapegoats and boogeymen) that you are accusing "Them" of doing?

    Not strike as a little hypocritical?

    No.
    You need to read the whole thread. I don't subscribe to a lot of the common CT's.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement