Aught3 wrote:Uh, no. Pre-invasion (or what could legitimately be referred to as liberation) Iraq was in the hands of a brutal dictator who actively oppressed and had tried to commit genocide on Iraqi minorities. Post-liberation a member of that repressed minority has been democratically elected and is now in the process of bringing the country into the future. Those in the Iraqi government have been tried for their crimes against humanity and those in neighbouring countries no longer have to fear the warmongering tendencies of Hussein.

Yes, Saddam oppressed and killed a lot of people, but he also maintained order which is much more important than who is the supposed leader of the country. Following the invasion, Iraq was in a state of anarchy for a while. It lost a lot of infrastructure and all social order broke down thanks to the "liberation". The US army did nothing to help. They disbanded the Iraqi army which made things worse and left the population to fend for itself. It was this chaos that caused the most casualties. Even today, the people continue to live in misery. Gangs fight for control of the cities and bombings occur weekly. Watch the documentary "No End In Sight" to see how the US turned Iraq into a living hell.

xman wrote:hm. Let me see. Could it be because he witnessed the destroyed remains of innocent civilians himself and has to listen to you insinuate he is a liar? I might retort with an ad hominem myself under those circumstances.

Tell me, when did I suggest he is a liar?

I am not angry at you personally for believing it, until you are shown its not true, I am more angry at the person who ever started it. Because he was given credence, and people asked is this true, so it got bigger, and bigger. Until you even heard it does that make sence.

As for showing more respect to the Iraqi dead, first off, one I didn't agree with going to Iraq, I lost allot of good friends who were soldiers, I think we needed to do something about Iraq but not when we did. I did and do agree with going after Osama and his minions, who we already know were in Afghanistan, and why do I think the people who died on 9/11 deserve a little more respect in my eyes, because the people in Iraq at the time of the war knew it was coming, they were told and the countries around even offered people the chance to come to safety, they did not take it.

But Shelly Marshall the wife of a good friend of mine, got up for work that morning kissed her husband and new born baby good bye for the day, and grabbed the list of birthday presents she was gonna buy on her way home, and instead I got to see her husbands face when we were extracting bodies, as he searched for her in the crowds, and i had to see his face when our NCO went up to him to tell him that we found her, and we could identify her only by the Pentagon Id card on her shirt.

They didn't the attack was coming, they had no warning, there was no notice, and no amount of they worked for the military can excuse that.

In a war any war civilians are not deliberately targeted or the people who do face charges with in our country, and if they are military then they face a death penalty. But these planes were not aimed at military targets save the pentagon, they were aimed at all the buildings and the one for the pentagon was sent there while the military personnel would have been at pt, only the civilians had started work, so you tell me why.


Edit: Was unaware that Shelly didn't carry her husband name but her maiden name, so fixed it to show the correct name.

Miranox wrote:Tell me, when did I suggest he is a liar?

Without scanning up thread, I thought you were for the "inside job" theory. That's calling the rest of us deluded and the witnesses liars. If not, my bad.

TheExylos wrote:the people in Iraq at the time of the war knew it was coming

Yes and many of them welcomed the US army because they thought it would eliminate Saddam and establish order. Instead, what they got was anarchy and destruction.

TheExylos wrote:the countries around even offered people the chance to come to safety

As far as I'm aware, that never happened. Those who could started fleeing once the chaos began but I doubt the other countries welcomed them.

TheExylos wrote:In a war any war civilians are not deliberately targeted or the people who do face charges with in our country, and if they are military then they face a death penalty. But these planes were not aimed at military targets save the pentagon, they were aimed at all the buildings and the one for the pentagon was sent there while the military personnel would have been at pt, only the civilians had started work, so you tell me why.

That is the difference between war and terrorism. I don't see why victims of war deserve less sympathy though. What you should be angry about is that the US government used 9/11 to deceive the public into supporting the Iraq war. They essentially destroyed another country because of something a group of terrorists did.

Points up to the I never supported the Iraq war.

Next as for them not being welcomed camps were deliberately setup for refugees, a month prior to us moving in. Hell even saddam had enough time to run away and hide. I am gonna assume you have never been a soldier, or at least one who has fought in a war. If not then i would not expect you to understand.

Miranox wrote:Yes, Saddam oppressed and killed a lot of people, but he also maintained order which is much more important than who is the supposed leader of the country. Following the invasion, Iraq was in a state of anarchy for a while. It lost a lot of infrastructure and all social order broke down thanks to the "liberation". The US army did nothing to help. They disbanded the Iraqi army which made things worse and left the population to fend for itself. It was this chaos that caused the most casualties. Even today, the people continue to live in misery. Gangs fight for control of the cities and bombings occur weekly. Watch the documentary "No End In Sight" to see how the US turned Iraq into a living hell.

I watched part one of three of the video you suggested. It certainly seems like Iraqi supported their liberation before becoming disenfranchised by the bungled US post-war reconstruction effort. But then it's not my contention that those in charge of US military policy were geniuses, only that the war itself is justified. To be honest I think we're derailing the thread and I can't really take someone seriously who suggests that the Iraqi people would be better off under a dictator who did not care whether they lived or died than in charge of their own country with the support of a benign but bungling military force. So I'm going to drop it.

The conspiracist at mostly this time say that the product that they used is called nano thermite in WTC 1-2 and 7 and they seem confident about the NASA imagery that the fire was double the temperature as Loose Change puts it. The guy who is promoting the idea is Steven E Jones, who basically said they found powerful paint chips that they are convinced is proof of nano thermite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OLiTkvtLm4

Not a conspiracist myself but its one of the claims that can be addressed.

KnowledgeIsFirepower wrote:The conspiracist at mostly this time say that the product that they used is called nano thermite in WTC 1-2 and 7 and they seem confident about the NASA imagery that the fire was double the temperature as Loose Change puts it. The guy who is promoting the idea is Steven E Jones, who basically said they found powerful paint chips that they are convinced is proof of nano thermite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OLiTkvtLm4

Not a conspiracist myself but its one of the claims that can be addressed.

It has been addressed in the at least one of the other threads we have about 9/11 (if not in this one)

once again I'll post this video



Jones is a hack who doesn't use any real scientific investigation and uses his title and a pay to publish "journal" with little to no peer review process to give his claims authority.

As the video states the 2 main byproducts of thermate are Aluminum Oxide and Barium Nitrate 2 things which would have no reason for being at the towers unless thermate was present, however neither the USGS or Jones report finding any traces of either of these elements

From what I've learned, "nano-thermite" is little more than a science-fiction buzzword like "hyperspace" or "tractor beam". The most you could say about it is that it's a theoretical substance intended for microscopic welding. Its use in the 9/11 debate is pure grasping at straws. First they said it was demolitions, but when they couldn't find evidence of demolitions they said it was thermite. When they couldn't find evidence of thermite, they said it was nano-thermite. One more step takes you into the world of orbiting death rays, but that would be too ridiculous.

Even regular thermite doesn't work the way truthers think it does. In an episode of mythbusters, they tried to use 1,000 lbs of it to burn through a car and it barely melted the roof.

Thermite's main use is in welding. As far as I know, it isn't used to cut girders and is only capable of cutting through thin pieces of steel. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that thermite even could cut through a steel girder, let alone do it by means of some automated delivery system.

That video KnowledgeIsFirepower posted was mainly focused on Tower 7. I had posed a question about Tower 7 earlier in this thread that has yet to be answered. Why does Tower 7 even matter? In the context of the conspiracy theory, what would be the point of demolishing an empty building several hours after the the American people are already united in grief? The only reason truthers even bring it up is because they think it can falsify the standing explanation. And if they can falsify the standing explanation in any way, they think they've proven their conclusion by default.

^^Hmmm....

Thermite seems to do a little better in these two clips from Brainiac:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a2OeWS3G-A




Sorry,...Devil's advocate,....

But they didn't really cut anything, did they? That's the optimum word here since that's what the truthers claim was done to the vertical columns of the World Trade Center buildings. Making a hole isn't the same thing and is a bit easier. The Brainiac's "time release mechanism" (the pot) provided a continuous flow of thermite onto a single point. I would very much like to see someone actually cut a vertical steel column, which is obviously a great deal stronger and harder than a car or a safe.

Greetings,

9/11 third tower mystery 'solved'

Just thought everyone ought to know...

Kindest regards,

James

wait there was a mystery about how tower 7 fell in the first place?

Reason on the first day: Fire.
Reason in the first report WTC 7 is mentioned in: Fire.
Newest reasoning, based on the most up to date information 9 years later: Fire.
What causes a building to accelerate as it falls? Something with more energy then what fire has to offer.

I've heard that insanity is saying the same thing but expecting different results each time; That article is a joke, much like the investigation, and is has been since day 1.

IBSpify wrote:wait there was a mystery about how tower 7 fell in the first place?

It's only a mystery to some.

Niocan wrote:Reason on the first day: Fire.
Reason in the first report WTC 7 is mentioned in: Fire.
Newest reasoning, based on the most up to date information 9 years later: Fire.
What causes a building to accelerate as it falls? Something with more energy then what fire has to offer.

It's called gravity.

I'll repeat my question to you. Why does Tower 7 even matter to your conspiracy theory? What's the point of destroying an empty, severely damaged building after firefighters have been battling flames inside it for several hours? What's the point of destroying it at all?

Niocan wrote:Reason on the first day: Fire.

Well when the firefighters on the scene say that the fire is going to cause the building to collapse and then the building collapses I will trust their judgement on the mater over some random nut burger on a conspiracy theorist website

Reason in the first report WTC 7 is mentioned in: Fire.

This is because it turns out that's what actually happened

Newest reasoning, based on the most up to date information 9 years later: Fire.

Again, when your reason is correct why would you change it to something that isn't correct?

What causes a building to accelerate as it falls?

Gravity, in fact it causes all objects to accelerate as they fall, not just buildings, and at a rate of roughly 9.81 m/s (meters per second)

@Niocan

I don't agree with your opinion, but I do understand what you're trying to say.

However, you're garbling your language so much that noone else understands you, and frankly it's just making you look like an idiot.

Please listen to me,....for your own benefit abandon your "eccentric" use of English, it isn't the rest of the worlds fault that you've made yourself unintelligible.

The problem with the acceleration is that it's unequivocal from free fall; The potential energy of the system is at or very near 100%, leaving the available kinetic energy at or near 0%. The only situation that can account for this use of energy is if all supporting columns and internal support failed at the same time, leaving the structure's resistance at or near 0%.

Can fire cause a simultaneous failure of all supporting columns to reduce the internal resistance to at or near 0% for the observed acceleration to make sense physically? No. Additional energy must thus be a key part in this collapse. The question here, is why this isn't mentioned? And why must I repeat the law of conservation of energy to everyone in so many different ways before anyone here actually thinks about what effect this has on the 'official story'?

Here are two new videos, from Alien Scientist on YT, enjoy if you want They'll answer your question Finger.



Can I also remind everyone here that this is a forum and as such questions can be asked by anyone about anything? Including what someone else has to say, because this usually goes hand in hand with the idea of intellectual conversations.

Niocan, I've already explained to you how the east interior of the building collapsed more than six seconds before the rest of the building and how truthers are more than eager to edit that stage of the collapse out of their propaganda in order to lie about both its fall time and its "symmetry". But of course, you ignored it the first time so I wouldn't be surprised if you ignored it this time.

Just a few minutes into that "new" video and it already parroted dozens of the same old myths, lies, and fallacious arguments that have been debunked time and time again. I'm not going sit through your propaganda just to maybe find the answer to one specific question. Answer it yourself. Why does Tower 7 matter to your conspiracy theory? The fact that you keep avoiding it only tells me that you don't have an answer.