Print Page | Close Window

Everyone must watch this video..

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Politics
Forum Name: World Politics
Forum Discription: World Politics
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23944
Printed Date: 17 April 2014 at 6:46am


Topic: Everyone must watch this video..
Posted By: honeto
Subject: Everyone must watch this video..
Date Posted: 24 September 2012 at 1:32pm
Search for the truth should never be feared, that's all these people and many more ask when it comes to 911.

http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138/

Please watch this video, its long but very informative. Please tell others to watch it as well.
Thanks,
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"



Replies:
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 September 2012 at 4:19pm
No offense intended, Hasan (and none taken either, BTW), but you can't just tell me I "must" watch an hour and a half long video.  I didn't watch it http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23759 - a month ago and I'm not going to watch it now either.
 
If there is a particular claim in the video that you want to discuss, then by all means summarize it and I'll explain to you why it's nonsense; but before I invest an hour and a half of my life on a conspiracy theory, I need some indication that the source is credible.  There are so many better things I can do with my time.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 25 September 2012 at 6:35am
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842 - - http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/575-popular-mechanics-ignores-its-own-historical-records-of-thermite-demolition-destruction-of-skyride-towers-reichstag-dome-set-incendiary-precedent.html


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 29 September 2012 at 1:40pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

No offense intended, Hasan (and none taken either, BTW), but you can't just tell me I "must" watch an hour and a half long video.  I didn't watch it http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23759 - a month ago and I'm not going to watch it now either.
 

If there is a particular claim in the video that you want to discuss, then by all means summarize it and I'll explain to you why it's nonsense; but before I invest an hour and a half of my life on a conspiracy theory, I need some indication that the source is credible.  There are so many better things I can do with my time.


My apologies to you Ron, may be I was wrong in saying "must". I think the events of 911 impacted lives of almost every living thing on this planet.
There are some valid questions about this event. Just like a man of reason may want to study facts about holocaust. We should be free to ask questions becasue it is also part of freedom.
There are some valid questions. Like many other people I am not satisfied with what I have heard so far.

1- I remember right after the event, there was a news about unusual stock movement taken place few days before 911. We never heard the follow up on that, was that ever investigated?
2- Israeli PM's visit was cancelled a couple of days before this event, why?

These questions like many others I have I don't find answers to that can be satisfying.

Now as far as questions from this video, I will post just two first:

1-Why was the evidence and all the scrap metal shipped to China for recycling, almost immediately. It was a crime scene and according to the rules, all the evidence has to be preserved and presented before a panel of experts. Why in a haste all of those rules were overlooked and bypassed, was there a motive?
2-Tower seven never got hit by a plane, how was it destroyed as if in a "perfect demolition" according to demolition experts.
Let me hear your response before any further questions.

What makes you to say "it's nonsense"?
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 29 September 2012 at 4:58pm

Originally posted by honeto

1- I remember right after the event, there was a news about unusual stock movement taken place few days before 911. We never heard the follow up on that, was that ever investigated?

Yes it was, and nothing significant was found.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp - http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

2- Israeli PM's visit was cancelled a couple of days before this event, why?

Actually, the Israeli PM was scheduled to speak on September 23, not on the 11th.  He cancelled, not surprisingly, on Sept. 12.
http://www.911myths.com/html/ariel_sharon.html - http://www.911myths.com/html/ariel_sharon.html

 
1-Why was the evidence and all the scrap metal shipped to China for recycling, almost immediately. It was a crime scene and according to the rules, all the evidence has to be preserved and presented before a panel of experts. Why in a haste all of those rules were overlooked and bypassed, was there a motive?

What does "almost immediately" mean?  My recollection is that it took months to clean up the site.  But of course they got rid of it as soon as they reasonably could.  What would you expect them to do?  Leave a smouldering, possibly toxic heap of garbage in the middle of Manhattan indefinitely?

2-Tower seven never got hit by a plane, how was it destroyed as if in a "perfect demolition" according to demolition experts.

Good question.  Why do you think it got destroyed?  Why would anybody stage a fake terrorist attack on the Twin Towers and then plant explosives in Building 7?

Let me hear your response before any further questions.

Okay, but just for the record I'm not going to get caught up in an endless barrage of crackpot theories and accusations.  Just give me your best evidence.  You can Google the rest yourself.

What makes you to say "it's nonsense"?

Because conspiracy theories like this are always nonsense.  It's just not conceivable that such a widespread and intricate government plot could be kept secret in a democratic and open society.  Maybe in totalitarian dictatorships (though even that is doubtful), but not here.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 01 October 2012 at 4:11pm
Ron,
thanks for your reply:

like I mentioned the first 1 and 2 were my own thoughts and your replies to them are same to me as mine were to you.
your answers to other questions, the one that this video deals with you fail to address in a manner I was expecting of you.
1- you know when there is a plane crash even if it is in the middle of the ocean on the botoom of the floor specially if terrorism is involved, they assemble every tinny piece they can find, and they put it together in a secure place to figure out what really has happened. They did not do that, why?
At a crime scene, every piece of evidence is important, therefore when a crime happens they secure it and every evidence until crime scene experts and lawyers have cross examined it. Why in such a big case, all of that was bypassed, who ordered such a bypass of laws?
Why the evidence was shipped overseas as it was cleaned off the site and sorted. All metal was shipped to China for melting before even determining by independent experts the reasons for its crumbling.
2- instead of answering this question you are asking me another question.

It is because of this that I asked you to watch this video. This is not a bunch of conspiracy theorists as you label them before listening to them. These are experts in their fields, physicists, scientists, demolition experts of no ordinary type rather cream of the crop. And not just a few, rather a huge number and growing everyday. It now also includes family members of those who died in this disaster, who after listening to these facts were convinced that the truth need to be explored.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 01 October 2012 at 4:26pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGbEJ3pXwWM - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGbEJ3pXwWM


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 01 October 2012 at 5:51pm

Originally posted by honeto

1- you know when there is a plane crash even if it is in the middle of the ocean on the botoom of the floor specially if terrorism is involved, they assemble every tinny piece they can find, and they put it together in a secure place to figure out what really has happened. They did not do that, why?

Because despite your attempt to create one, there is no mystery here.  Investigators painstakingly reconstruct crashed airplanes in order to determine the cause of the crash.  In this case, the cause is blindingly obvious: even you would agree that the planes were deliberately flown into the buildings.  There was no design flaw, no stuck valve, no metal fatigue or pilot fatigue.  And besides, the planes were totally incinerated, everything including the metal literally melted or burned beyond recognition.  There was nothing left to assemble.

2- instead of answering this question you are asking me another question.

Right, because if you find the conventional explanation improbable, then you must have some more probable explanation, eh?  But if you want a direct answer to your question: Building 7 was destroyed by fire after large amounts of burning debris fell on it.  There was no demolition.  Firefighters knew at least half an hour before the building collapsed that it was about to go down, which is why everyone got out in time.  No explosives required.

Okay, your turn.  Why would anybody stage a fake terrorist attack on the Twin Towers and then plant explosives in Building 7?

It is because of this that I asked you to watch this video. This is not a bunch of conspiracy theorists as you label them before listening to them. These are experts in their fields, physicists, scientists, demolition experts of no ordinary type rather cream of the crop.

Really?  Have you checked their credentials?  Give my your best example of a "cream of the crop" expert and we'll see.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 02 October 2012 at 2:25pm
Ron,
1-and that is my point. To determine all of that. Why there was haste in melting all of that. That is what these experts are asking. You used the words "melting", that is something you and I would believe the jet fuel would do, right. Not so the experts, who say the temperature with all that fuel burning would not even bend the metal let alone melting. See, you thought you knew that. It is for this reason it is necessary that we let the experts investigate what really happened. What was used that did the melting! Do you know?

2- That is my point, how did the firefighters knew that the building is going to go down. According to experts in that field, there has never been a case where fire along brought down a high rise tower. Can you find a case of a modern building like this one that came down in a result of a fire?
I am not concluding anything, just showing my concern that something of this magnitude deserve appropriate attention which I belief it did not. I do see evidence (we are talking about) that suggest truth compromised or covered up whatever that be.

In order to see their credentials, you asked, it is all in that video! In fact that is the most compelling part.

Hasan



-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 02 October 2012 at 6:43pm

Originally posted by honeto

1-and that is my point. To determine all of that. Why there was haste in melting all of that. That is what these experts are asking.

Determine all of what?  We know why the plane crashed into the building.  Why on earth would we bother reconstructing it, even if we could?  And please, what do you mean by "haste"?  According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center - Wikipedia , the debris continued to burn for three months, and cleanup wasn't officially complete until the end of May, 2002.  If this had happened in the middle of your city, don't you think that would have been plenty long enough?

You used the words "melting", that is something you and I would believe the jet fuel would do, right. Not so the experts, who say the temperature with all that fuel burning would not even bend the metal let alone melting. See, you thought you knew that. It is for this reason it is necessary that we let the experts investigate what really happened. What was used that did the melting! Do you know?

"Melting" may not be technically correct, but steel loses much of its strength at high temperatures and certainly would (and obviously did) bend and warp under load.

2- That is my point, how did the firefighters knew that the building is going to go down.

According to the firefighters themselves, they knew because they could hear the building frame creaking and groaning under the stress.  What is your theory?  Did they all get text messages on their smart phones saying "clear out - we're detonating the charges now!"?  LOL

According to experts in that field, there has never been a case where fire along brought down a high rise tower. Can you find a case of a modern building like this one that came down in a result of a fire?

No, I can't find a similar case.  Can you?  How many buildings of similar size have been struck by a Boeing 767 fully loaded with jet fuel?

In order to see their credentials, you asked, it is all in that video! In fact that is the most compelling part.

I asked you for your best example of an expert who supports your theory.  I'm not going to research forty different "experts", and I'm not going to pick one myself because you'll tell me he is a bad example.

By the way, you also still haven't explained why the conspirators would plant explosives in Building 7 when they were planning to crash the planes into the Twin Towers.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 02 October 2012 at 9:11pm
I can't for the life of me figure out why people are so willing to believe these wacko theories.  Very little research is all that is required to refute this stuff but people are so unwilling to do even that very little bit of work.  Maybe a little intrigue is what people are looking for.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 03 October 2012 at 9:01am
http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/towers-collapse/ -


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 04 October 2012 at 5:29pm
What did al-Jazeera report after the attack? Did they check their sources before broadcasting al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility? Has the claim ever been retracted? Or are both organisations also part of the same conspiracy, along with Israel and the US?


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 05 October 2012 at 11:53am
Ron,
I thought of you as a person of reason and of one who sticks to facts and truth. I am disappointed. You somehow give me impression that you know more than the facts out there, do you? or simply you just have a belief and nothing can change it, neither facts nor even science.

1- Why was all the steel sent overseas to melt as it was picked up? Why was it not stored (even in an open land somewhere) because it was material from a crime scene. Why it was not treated as such?
You fail to give a satisfying answer to a valid question, and I hate to see your belief shaken that yes it is true that the protocol was not followed in this case and why? Your response is not as strong as your opposition to the question is.
About melting steel, it is pure science. All you have to do is to see when steel is soft, and at what temperature it can bend or melt. For some odd reason your theory does not match with science. That is the kind of issue the scientists in this video discuss, you refuse to know that fact or answer. Rather you take the naive approach, where it suits you.
Firefighters in this video talk also about explosions before building crumbled to the ground. So it is important to listen to all the conversation, and not cut it where is goes against your belief. Why are people afraid of the truth?

You mentioned you cannot find a similar case in response to my question. You added, "how many buildings are struck by a plane". There shows your lack of paying attention because you fear it will shake your belief. I never mentioned that building 7 was ever struck by a plane. My question was, in case of fire, how may times a building has fallen to the ground like this one? Oops!

You have not provided me credentials of experts, but I have, in that video you can see who is who pretty clear.
Hasan





-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 05 October 2012 at 1:11pm
Actually Honeto, Ron has answered all your "questions" very thoroughly.  It's you that simply insists on more and more detail with each answer or refuse to read his answers.   Clearly you have an agenda and will accept no answer that doesn't agree with your conspiracy theory.  Such is the case with all conspiracy theorists.  Just look at the moon landing nuts.  Their idiocy is still floating around the internet decades after the fact.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 05 October 2012 at 1:15pm
Originally posted by schmikbob

I can't for the life of me figure out why people are so willing to believe these wacko theories.  Very little research is all that is required to refute this stuff but people are so unwilling to do even that very little bit of work.  Maybe a little intrigue is what people are looking for.


Why did building 7 came down like a perfect demolition just because of fire is not a wacko theory but a valid question. To not listen to logical question of why something happened, you can call it whatever name you please!

To question if steel can melt with jet fuel alone is not a wacko theory but a valid question of science. Do you have the answer for that? or do you believe no one should question your belief?
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 05 October 2012 at 6:00pm
Both your questions have been answered, multiple times.  You simply do not wish to accept the answers.  So be it.  I suspect that another time answering them will not satisfy you either but here goes.
 
1.  Building 7 did not come down "just like a perfect demolition" or "just because of fire".  Building 7 was nailed by one of the collapsing twin towers.  There are many pictures of the gaping holes in it's side as a result.  These were not caused by fire as much as you would like it to be so.
 
2. Steel does not have to melt for system failure to occur.  Steel loses over half it's strength at half it's melting point.
 
Neither of these answers is a "belief".  Seriously Honeto, you at least ought to do a little research before you simply repeat what you've heard others tell you.
    


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 05 October 2012 at 6:40pm

Originally posted by honeto

I thought of you as a person of reason and of one who sticks to facts and truth. I am disappointed. You somehow give me impression that you know more than the facts out there, do you? or simply you just have a belief and nothing can change it, neither facts nor even science.

I'm open to any facts you would care to present, but so far all you've offered me is rhetorical questions and unfounded speculations.

1- Why was all the steel sent overseas to melt as it was picked up? Why was it not stored (even in an open land somewhere) because it was material from a crime scene. Why it was not treated as such?

Store it where?  According to http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?investigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation&timeline=complete_911_timeline - historycommons.org , we're talking about "more than 108,000 truckloads of debris, comprising 1.8 million tons of steel and concrete".  And remember, this is the epicenter of some of the most valuable real estate on the planet.  Who is going to pay for the storage, not to mention the transport?

You fail to give a satisfying answer to a valid question, and I hate to see your belief shaken that yes it is true that the protocol was not followed in this case and why?

I'm not sure what "protocol" you're referring to.  I've never heard of an entire building, or the rubble thereof, being impounded for months.  Did anything like that happen with the Oklahoma City bombing, for instance?

About melting steel, it is pure science. All you have to do is to see when steel is soft, and at what temperature it can bend or melt. For some odd reason your theory does not match with science. That is the kind of issue the scientists in this video discuss, you refuse to know that fact or answer. Rather you take the naive approach, where it suits you.

Forget "melting steel".  It was a poor choice of words on my part.  And yes, the fires were plenty hot enough to soften steel - but that wasn't the only effect of the high temperatures:

"It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
 
"The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire."
 
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html - http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html
 
Firefighters in this video talk also about explosions before building crumbled to the ground. So it is important to listen to all the conversation, and not cut it where is goes against your belief. Why are people afraid of the truth?

Loud noises are often described as explosions.  You wouldn't expect buildings of this size to collapse quietly, would you?

You mentioned you cannot find a similar case in response to my question. You added, "how many buildings are struck by a plane". There shows your lack of paying attention because you fear it will shake your belief. I never mentioned that building 7 was ever struck by a plane. My question was, in case of fire, how may times a building has fallen to the ground like this one? Oops!

Okay, how many high-rise buildings have been abandoned by firefighters and left to burn for more than six hours?

You have not provided me credentials of experts, but I have, in that video you can see who is who pretty clear.

Name one.  Which of these experts do you find most convincing?



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 05 October 2012 at 6:59pm
Forget it, all Honeto is going to do is pose more rhetorical questions.  He's not going to answer your requests to be specific or agree with anything you say.  He has the answer he's looking for and is working backwards.  How can I force my round evidence into this square conspiracy I want it to fit?


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 05 October 2012 at 9:35pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V0WQFztLyg - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V0WQFztLyg



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 06 October 2012 at 9:51am
Originally posted by schmikbob

Forget it, all Honeto is going to do is pose more rhetorical questions.  He's not going to answer your requests to be specific or agree with anything you say.  He has the answer he's looking for and is working backwards.  How can I force my round evidence into this square conspiracy I want it to fit?

Ron and Schmikbob,
I never said I have the answers. In case you missed I said I have questions, and you two are simply denying and refusing to hear those questions. You have also failed to scientifically prove your beliefs. You remember Oklahoma City bombing, a huge bomb, fire, still the structure was still there. Wow, that's a big one. But if you two are not ready for some logical questions, that's OK.
All I am saying is that I refuse to accept spoon fed conclusions prepared by "paid experts". It is logical to find out with the help of really independent experts what had really happen.
What you doing is as if denying yourself a chance to see the whole picture by refusing to see it with both eyes. You rather see it with just one eye, that's your choice. I want to see it with both eyes, you have a problem with that?
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: schmikbob
Date Posted: 06 October 2012 at 3:46pm
Honeto, actually what is going on is you refusing to even acknowledge answers to your questions.  You just keep on posing them again and again as if nobody addressed them.  That's the mark of someone with an agenda and someone that doesn't care to have a discussion.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 06 October 2012 at 5:19pm

Originally posted by honeto

I never said I have the answers. In case you missed I said I have questions, and you two are simply denying and refusing to hear those questions.

I think you're refusing to hear the answers, Hasan.  Let me summarize the answers I've given you so far:

  1. There was no unusual stock trading activity, according to the 9/11 Commission.  If you know differently, you'll need to be more specific.
  2. The Israeli Prime Minister cancelled his visit after 9/11, not before.
  3. There was no undue haste in disposing of the rubble from the buildings, and no "protocol" was violated in doing so.  The cleanup from the Oklahoma City bombing was much faster, and I didn't hear accusations of cover-up.
  4. A "perfect demolition" does not begin as a raging inferno that burns for six hours in multiple areas of the building.  Moreover, the firefighters on the scene did not see a structurally sound building just waiting for the charges to detonate, as they would in a demolition.  They saw a severely weakened frame that was ready to fall at any moment without the need for any intervention.
    The only sense in which it resembled a demolition is that the building fell down -- just as it would in the case of " http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/towers-collapse/ - total progressive collapse ".  I'm not sure why you find that surprising.  What direction would you expect it to fall? Tongue
  5. I don't know of another high-rise fire that resulted in total building collapse, but then I don't know of a similar building that was left to burn for six hours either.  The situation was literally unprecedented.  One shouldn't be surprised not to find similar examples.
  6. The collapse of a huge building is necessarily a noisy event.   I'm not surprised that it might sound like a series of explosions.  For that matter, there probably were plenty of actual explosions of fuel tanks, compressed gas cylinders, etc.
You also seem to be refusing to hear my question: given that the planes were crashed into the Twin Towers, why would the conspirators plant explosives in Building 7?  What was the point in furnishing this (according to you) clear evidence that there was a conspiracy going on?  Even worse, what if Building 7 hadn't caught fire?  Surely they couldn't have planned exactly where burning debris from the impact would fall.  Wouldn't the sudden collapse of a totally undamaged building have been a dead giveaway?


You have also failed to scientifically prove your beliefs. You remember Oklahoma City bombing, a huge bomb, fire, still the structure was still there.

I do remember the Oklahoma City bombing, but I don't recall any significant fire.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 06 October 2012 at 6:30pm
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2009/04//428237.mp3 - George Galloway show (edited)- 17th April 2009 – mp3 15M


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 06 October 2012 at 6:34pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

  1. I don't know of another high-rise fire that resulted in total building collapse, but then I don't know of a similar building that was left to burn for six hours either.  The situation was literally unprecedented.  One shouldn't be surprised not to find similar examples.


I would add to that... a fire that burned with the heat fed by fuel.
(There's a technical term for that I believe... ugh, so frustrating that I can't remember it right now.)

[edit:  the word is accelerant, or incendiary]


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 09 October 2012 at 3:46pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by honeto

I never said I have the answers. In case you missed I said I have questions, and you two are simply denying and refusing to hear those questions.


I think you're refusing to hear the answers, Hasan.  Let me summarize the answers I've given you so far:



  1. There was no unusual stock trading activity, according to the 9/11 Commission.  If you know differently, you'll need to be more specific.
  2. The Israeli Prime Minister cancelled his visit after 9/11, not before.
  3. There was no undue haste in disposing of the rubble from the buildings, and no "protocol" was violated in doing so.  The cleanup from the Oklahoma City bombing was much faster, and I didn't hear accusations of cover-up.
  4. A "perfect demolition" does not begin as a raging inferno that burns for six hours in multiple areas of the building.  Moreover, the firefighters on the scene did not see a structurally sound building just waiting for the charges to detonate, as they would in a demolition.  They saw a severely weakened frame that was ready to fall at any moment without the need for any intervention.The only sense in which it resembled a demolition is that the building fell down -- just as it would in the case of " http://nymag.com/news/9-11/10th-anniversary/towers-collapse/ - total progressive collapse ".  I'm not sure why you find that surprising.  What direction would you expect it to fall? [IMG]http://www.islamicity.com/forum/smileys/smiley17.gif" height="17" width="17" align="absmiddle" alt="Tongue" />
  5. I don't know of another high-rise fire that resulted in total building collapse, but then I don't know of a similar building that was left to burn for six hours either.  The situation was literally unprecedented.  One shouldn't be surprised not to find similar examples.
  6. The collapse of a huge building is necessarily a noisy event.   I'm not surprised that it might sound like a series of explosions.  For that matter, there probably were plenty of actual explosions of fuel tanks, compressed gas cylinders, etc.

You also seem to be refusing to hear my question: given that the planes were crashed into the Twin Towers, why would the conspirators plant explosives in Building 7?  What was the point in furnishing this (according to you) clear evidence that there was a conspiracy going on?  Even worse, what if Building 7 hadn't caught fire?  Surely they couldn't have planned exactly where burning debris from the impact would fall.  Wouldn't the sudden collapse of a totally undamaged building have been a dead giveaway?

You have also failed to scientifically prove your beliefs. You remember Oklahoma City bombing, a huge bomb, fire, still the structure was still there.


I do remember the Oklahoma City bombing, but I don't recall any significant fire.




Ron,
I know you have posted answers, but they are mare official statements. There needs to be independent investigations into this event that brought changes to the whole world. Our freedoms and the way we live.

Only a dumb person will believe that some religious fanatics and cave dwellers can all of a sudden learn to fly these complicated machines, drive around with their copies of the Qurans in their cars, go to nude bars before high jacking planes, and then precisely slam them into towers that probably require more accuracy then a perfect landing.
That does not make sense, but that's how we were told.
The rest of your answers only make sense to you, not to me. I still think that those experts and engineers do need a chance to question official theories.
I am done with you, as you and those like you have a belief and you don't like questioning your beliefs.
My questions have not been answered by you, what you did is just repeat what the official statement were. I am not interested in them, I would like to hear scientific explanations.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 09 October 2012 at 4:42pm
Originally posted by honeto

[qoute=Ron Webb]
You also seem to be refusing to hear my question: given that the planes were crashed into the Twin Towers, why would the conspirators plant explosives in Building 7?  What was the point in furnishing this (according to you) clear evidence that there was a conspiracy going on?  Even worse, what if Building 7 hadn't caught fire?  Surely they couldn't have planned exactly where burning debris from the impact would fall.  Wouldn't the sudden collapse of a totally undamaged building have been a dead giveaway?


Ron,
I know you have posted answers, but they are mare official statements. There needs to be independent investigations into this event that brought changes to the whole world. Our freedoms and the way we live.

Only a dumb person will believe that some religious fanatics and cave dwellers can all of a sudden learn to fly these complicated machines, drive around with their copies of the Qurans in their cars, go to nude bars before high jacking planes, and then precisely slam them into towers that probably require more accuracy then a perfect landing.
That does not make sense, but that's how we were told.
The rest of your answers only make sense to you, not to me. I still think that those experts and engineers do need a chance to question official theories.
I am done with you, as you and those like you have a belief and you don't like questioning your beliefs.
My questions have not been answered by you, what you did is just repeat what the official statement were. I am not interested in them, I would like to hear scientific explanations.
Hasan
[/QUOTE]

Greetings Hasan,

I am having a similar conversation elsewhere.

I do think Ron raises some valid questions... those similar to ones that I would raise.

First I want to say that your comment about Saudi's not being able to learn to fly these planes is completely off base.  They are more than intelligent enough.  I went to college with quite a few people from the mid-east and most were studying to be engineers... a highly intelligent field.  It is no far stretch for them to have been in the U.S. training to be pilots.  For a very long time people have been sending their children to the U.S. from the mid-east, to get an education.  It just goes to show how trusting the U.S. was prior to 9/11, content in their belief that other nations would like to emulate them, not destroy them.

There is no question about who hi-jacked those planes... all 4 of them.

As far as the collapse of the twin towers and bldg. 7...
I can agree... it seems to be obvious that there was more to the collapse of the buildings in New York than merely the planes that hit the towers.

So what do you think happened?

Caringheart Heart




Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 09 October 2012 at 8:15pm
Originally posted by honeto

Ron,
I know you have posted answers, but they are mare official statements.
 
I don't know what you're talking about.  There is nothing "official" about my statements.  I'm simply presenting obvious facts and common sense.  If the facts and common sense happen to be on the side of the conventional wisdom, that's a reason to believe the conventional wisdom, not to dismiss it.
 
Only a dumb person will believe that some religious fanatics and cave dwellers can all of a sudden learn to fly these complicated machines, drive around with their copies of the Qurans in their cars, go to nude bars before high jacking planes, and then precisely slam them into towers that probably require more accuracy then a perfect landing. 
 
Oh come on, Hasan!  We know where these guys learned to fly the planes, and we know that they were able to slam the planes into the buildings so it obviously wasn't that hard.  You're not just ignoring common sense, you're ignoring reality.
 
I still want to know why the conspirators would plant bombs in Building 7 if the planes were only hitting the Towers.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 10 October 2012 at 9:23pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
 
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRpSdiCC-ws&feature=watch_response - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRpSdiCC-ws&feature=watch_response


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 15 October 2012 at 3:46pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by honeto

Ron, I know you have posted answers, but they are mare official statements.
 

I don't know what you're talking about.  There is nothing "official" about my statements.  I'm simply presenting obvious facts and common sense.  If the facts and common sense happen to be on the side of the conventional wisdom, that's a reason to believe the conventional wisdom, not to dismiss it.


 

Only a dumb person will believe that some religious fanatics and cave dwellers can all of a sudden learn to fly these complicated machines, drive around with their copies of the Qurans in their cars, go to nude bars before high jacking planes, and then precisely slam them into towers that probably require more accuracy then a perfect landing. 

 

Oh come on, Hasan!  We know where these guys learned to fly the planes, and we know that they were able to slam the planes into the buildings so it obviously wasn't that hard.  You're not just ignoring common sense, you're ignoring reality.

 

I still want to know why the conspirators would plant bombs in Building 7 if the planes were only hitting the Towers.


Ron,
there were no fact you offered that were not part of the official version of the event. There are people who question that and I see that they have some valid reasons to do so. Why there is opposition to find facts? Why they are being dismissed as "conspiracy theories"? We have not yet listened to the other side yet. How can we be sure that we have the truth. Only our refusal to hear them or dismiss them as conspiracy theorists itself is suspicious.
I you know the process of how one becomes a jet pilot let alone a passenger jet pilot, it is pretty interesting that these must be the smartest people on the planet to achieve such perfection in a very short time, while it takes a long time and a lot of sophisticated training for our pilots to achieve, to steer one of these. Your mind can fathom that, mine still questions it.
About building seven I am the one asking question, if you don;t have the answer, leave it there.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 17 October 2012 at 4:43pm
Greetings Hasan,

Did you miss what I had written to you?
Go up two or three posts.

I took flying lessons at one point.  it is not inconceivable that these very intelligent men could learn to fly.  I personally do not doubt their ability to learn... not at all.  I elaborate in my other post.

Blessings to you,
Caringheart




Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 17 October 2012 at 7:08pm

Originally posted by honeto

Ron,
there were no fact you offered that were not part of the official version of the event.

Facts are facts, Hasan.  Why should a fact be disqualified simply because it is cited by the authorities?

Why there is opposition to find facts? Why they are being dismissed as "conspiracy theories"? We have not yet listened to the other side yet. How can we be sure that we have the truth. Only our refusal to hear them or dismiss them as conspiracy theorists itself is suspicious.

They are called "conspiracy theories" because the underlying assumption is that hundreds or perhaps thousands of people in a dozen different organizations and at various levels of authority all secretly conspired together to commit a horrendous crime that killed thousands of people.  This just doesn't happen in real life.  It is hard enough to find even one such cold-blooded killer.  For hundreds of them to identify and contact one another, while keeping the plan secret from anyone else, is inconceivable.

I you know the process of how one becomes a jet pilot let alone a passenger jet pilot, it is pretty interesting that these must be the smartest people on the planet to achieve such perfection in a very short time, while it takes a long time and a lot of sophisticated training for our pilots to achieve, to steer one of these. Your mind can fathom that, mine still questions it.

Where are you getting this strange idea that one needs to be some kind of genius to steer a plane into a building?  Takeoff and landing are the hard parts, but frankly anyone with a basic familiarity with the controls plus a couple of hours' practice on http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimulatorx/ - Flight Simulator could probably hit a target without much trouble.  (I've played with Flight Simulator.  It's not that hard, really it's not.)

About building seven I am the one asking question, if you don;t have the answer, leave it there.

Sorry, I won't accept that.  If you want to convince anyone of your theory, you have to show that it is more probable than the "official" theory.  You can't just pick holes in your opponent's position while totally ignoring the gaping chasms in your own.  If you can't explain why on earth the conspirators would plan in advance to blow up Building 7, which wasn't even supposed to be a target of the airplanes, then I don't see how anyone could find your theory more credible than the obvious explanation.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: nospam001
Date Posted: 17 October 2012 at 7:30pm

Sorry to be asking this one again:

What did al-Jazeera report after the attack? Did they check their sources before broadcasting al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility? Has the claim ever been retracted? Or are both organisations also part of the same conspiracy, along with Israel and the US?


-------------
God has the right to remain silent. For His advocates, however, each resigned shrug is a missed opportunity to win new converts.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 18 October 2012 at 3:23pm
Ron,
fact is something science can prove, in this video science is proving that what happened could not have happened with what was available there according to the official statement.
You are telling me the governments don't lie to their people? Our government never lied to us?
There is more to it, and to get to that truth, we need to reopen this case and find the truth independently without any influences for any side except the truth.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 18 October 2012 at 3:32pm
Originally posted by nospam001

Sorry to be asking this one again:


What did al-Jazeera report after the attack? Did they check their sources before broadcasting al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility? Has the claim ever been retracted? Or are both organisations also part of the same conspiracy, along with Israel and the US?


I do not know, I do not watch Al-Jazeera.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 October 2012 at 4:23pm

Originally posted by honeto

Ron,
fact is something science can prove, in this video science is proving that what happened could not have happened with what was available there according to the official statement.

If there is any actual science in this video, I wish you would tell me about it.  So far all you've told me are a number of unsubstantiated claims.  I'm still waiting for you to offer the name and credentials of a single one of the so-called "experts" in this video.  Without that, it's not science, just hearsay.

You are telling me the governments don't lie to their people? Our government never lied to us?

I'm saying that our/your government never killed thousands of its own citizens simply to score some kind of cheap propaganda victory, and even if it did there is no way such a thing could be kept secret.  What you are suggesting is not only enormously evil, but as far as I can tell pretty much pointless and not worth the risk.

I'm also saying that in order to present a convincing alternative theory, you need to show that it is more plausible the conventional explanation.  So far all you have done is to nitpick tiny details of the official version, while totally ignoring the huge logical and logistical improbabilities of your own.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 22 October 2012 at 3:43pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by honeto

Ron, fact is something science can prove, in this video science is proving that what happened could not have happened with what was available there according to the official statement.


If there is any actual science in this video, I wish you would tell me about it.  So far all you've told me are a number of unsubstantiated claims.  I'm still waiting for you to offer the name and credentials of a single one of the so-called "experts" in this video.  Without that, it's not science, just hearsay.


You are telling me the governments don't lie to their people? Our government never lied to us?


I'm saying that our/your government never killed thousands of its own citizens simply to score some kind of cheap propaganda victory, and even if it did there is no way such a thing could be kept secret.  What you are suggesting is not only enormously evil, but as far as I can tell pretty much pointless and not worth the risk.


I'm also saying that in order to present a convincing alternative theory, you need to show that it is more plausible the conventional explanation.  So far all you have done is to nitpick tiny details of the official version, while totally ignoring the huge logical and logistical improbabilities of your own.



Ron.estion
the answer to your first question: It is in the video, watch it, and then tell me if that's not science.

Government not killing its own people, a separate issue but you did not answer my question, does our or any Government ever lies to its people?

And I am not presenting any theories as I stated before, I am only questioning official theories.
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 22 October 2012 at 5:39pm

Originally posted by honeto

the answer to your first question: It is in the video, watch it, and then tell me if that's not science.

If what is not science?  No, a video is not science.  If you think the video contains science, then tell me what.  Don't expect me to go hunting for it.

Government not killing its own people, a separate issue but you did not answer my question, does our or any Government ever lies to its people?

Of course it does, when there is a strong motivation to do so and and fair probability that they might get away with it.  But neither of those contingencies applies here.  Calling them a "separate issue" does not answer them.

What you're implying would require the coordinated activities of literally hundreds of truly sick minds, to slaughter thousands of their own citizens for no compelling purpose that I can see.  One or two I could easily believe, but hundreds?  And even if they existed, how could they identify one another and coordinate their actions without anyone else finding out?

And I am not presenting any theories as I stated before, I am only questioning official theories.
Hasan

And that's the problem.  Whatever nitpicking objections you might want to suggest, the "official" theory remains the most likely explanation unless/until you can offer a better one.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: arbindsahoo
Date Posted: 03 January 2013 at 11:03pm
This video is really very interesting and informative for us.



Print Page | Close Window