Iranian President suggests 9/11 foul play and cover up

editor · May 23, 2006

Jazzz said:
Speculative? It was beyond speculation. Steel columns easily trump the thin skins of aircraft. Skyscrapers have burned for 17+ hours, real raging infernos that make the fires on 9/11 look like a campfire, and none had collapsed as a result of fire before 9/11, or since.

Right, that's it.

I can see that you're only interested in knocking out the same loonspud stuff all over again for the millionth time.

In line with our oft-repeated policy about endlessly repeating 9/11 threads that just echo the same evidence-free 'speculation' again and again and again, either produce credible new evidence or this thread is bin bound.

ZWord · May 23, 2006

But it's worth keeping the thread just to be able to read ahmadinejad's letter.

Or do you basically agree with George Bush that the fewer people get to read what he actually said the better?

spring-peeper · May 23, 2006

editor said:
In line with our oft-repeated policy about endlessly repeating 9/11 threads that just echo the same evidence-free 'speculation' again and again and again, either produce credible new evidence or this thread is bin bound.

Ever thought of making a graphic with that on it?

editor · May 23, 2006

ZWord said:
But it's worth keeping the thread just to be able to read ahmadinejad's letter.

Or do you basically agree with George Bush that the fewer people get to read what he actually said the better?

I basically agree with the binning of all threads where the same suspects endlessly repeat the same fact-free 'theories' ad infinitum.

If those people don't want these kind of threads binned they could simply shut the fuck up with the endless loonspud repetition.

Problem solved.

Jazzz · May 23, 2006

ZWord said:
Thanks for the thread, jazz, I wouldn't have been able to read ahmadinejad's letter otherwise, and it wasn't a bad letter.

And it was kind of refreshing to read something by a politician that was actually genuine, and written by him, rather than someone else.

You're welcome

Jonti · May 23, 2006

Jazzz said:
You're welcome

But of course, things are not always as they seem.

What does this mean? The first Koranic quote is from Ahmadinejad's letter. The second is from the top online Koran ...

[3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then say : Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran).

[3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.

The Book means the Penateuch, the first five books of the Bible, which are sacred texts for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (in that order of seniority). We shall not associate aught with Him means, I understand, that God in One and indivisible (specifically, not the Trinity of Christianity). The correct Koranic text is clear. Why the "typo"? Weird.

Check Digging deeper on Ahmadinejad’s letter (but don't worry, Iran and the US have been low level warring since the Iranian Revolution).

:eek:

Blagsta · May 23, 2006

How do you know?

Jonti · May 23, 2006

Blagsta said:
How do you know?

About the low-level warring? I read far too much. But no, I don't know, not for sure. They certainly do make belligerent noises to each other. That much is for sure.

Let me share two things ...

One thing: most -- nearly all - suicide bombers are honoured martyrs, known individuals. But the guy behind the 1983 suicide bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut remains nameless. That suggests to some (including me) the involvement of a state party. Iran is the prime suspect.

The other thing: This.

Blagsta · May 23, 2006

Sorry, I wasn't replying to you.

Jazzz said:
The collapse of the towers was no 'icing on the cake' for those who planned the attacks. It was a main objective.

How do you know?

Blagsta · May 23, 2006

Jazzz said:
Speculative? It was beyond speculation. Steel columns easily trump the thin skins of aircraft. Skyscrapers have burned for 17+ hours, real raging infernos that make the fires on 9/11 look like a campfire, and none had collapsed as a result of fire before 9/11, or since.

No one ever crashed a jet liner laden with fuel into skyscraper before. You know what 1/2mv(squared) means?

laptop · May 23, 2006

editor said:
If those people don't want these kind of threads binned they could simply shut the fuck up with the endless loonspud repetition.

Unless their purpose is to prevent discussion of anything except their ELR - and cause binning.

In which case... the conclusion is rather obvious.

Donna Ferentes · May 23, 2006

I would have thought the binning of this thread was our main objective. In fact, we should bin several threads, because just binning one wouldn't have anything like the same impact.

Jazzz · May 23, 2006

Blagsta said:
No one ever crashed a jet liner laden with fuel into skyscraper before. You know what 1/2mv(squared) means?

The kinetic energy from the crash was easily dissipated by the ability of the skyscrapers to bend. I don't think anyone has suggested that was a problem for the structures. Similar amount of energy must be so absorbed in high winds.

laptop · May 23, 2006

Double post - broadband wobble just at that moment :eek:

Donna Ferentes · May 23, 2006

Jazzz said:
The kinetic energy from the crash was easily dissipated by the ability of the skyscrapers to bend. I don't think anyone has suggested that was a problem for the structures. Similar amount of energy must be so absorbed in high winds.

As any structural engineer won't tell you.

laptop · May 23, 2006

Δοννα Φερεντες said:
I would have thought the binning of this thread was our main objective. In fact, we should bin several threads, because just binning one wouldn't have anything like the same impact.

But will the ensuing board wobble be an essential feature of our planning, or an unexpected side-effect of the intended act of getting one or more threads binned?

Jazzz · May 23, 2006

Jonti said:
The Book means the Penateuch, the first five books of the Bible, which are sacred texts for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (in that order of seniority). We shall not associate aught with Him means, I understand, that God in One and indivisible (specifically, not the Trinity of Christianity). The correct Koranic text is clear. Why the "typo"? Weird.

Interesting... you would have thought he would get his quotes right :eek:

Jazzz · May 23, 2006

Donna Ferentes said:
As any structural engineer won't tell you.

DF, I haven't come across ANY structural engineers suggesting that the kinetic energy from the crash was a problem here. Rather the official collapse theory is based on damage to the structure on the impact floors and heat from resulting fires.

Blagsta · May 23, 2006

Jazzz said:
The kinetic energy from the crash was easily dissipated by the ability of the skyscrapers to bend.

And you know this...how exactly?

Jazzz said:
I don't think anyone has suggested that was a problem for the structures.

I don't think anyone flew a jetliner into a skyscraper before.

Jazzz said:
Similar amount of energy must be so absorbed in high winds.

You're having a laugh!

Jonti · May 23, 2006

Jazzz said:
Interesting... you would have thought he would get his quotes right

I'd have thought it blasphemy to get it wrong :confused:

Nice story about the Caliphs and the Roman Empire, eh?

editor · May 23, 2006

Jazzz said:
The kinetic energy from the crash was easily dissipated by the ability of the skyscrapers to bend. I don't think anyone has suggested that was a problem for the structures.

Oh for fuck's sake. Get your head out of your arse and do some grown up, non-loon research. You could start with one of the WTC engineers. I think he knows a little more than you.

Leslie Robertson is one of the world's leading structural engineers. And two years ago Engineering News Record named him one of its 125 top people of the past 125 years.

He served as the structural engineer for many tall buildings around the world,
including the Bank of China in Hong Kong and the World Trade Center.

"We designed for a Boeing 707 flying slowly, looking for a landing place. What hit it was a 767, a little heavier, but flying a whole lot faster.

And, so, the energy the building had to absorb to the same scale, this changed. So, the buildings took a hit, which was a
whole lot more than that for which they were designed.

Now, the buildings were not designed of the fuel load of the 707. Why? We were not responsible for the fire engineering, but the principal reason is it wasn't possible to do it.

But in any event, comparing the 707 with the 767, this is the amount of fuel in the 767 and the 707. And we designed it for nothing."
http://tinyurl.com/g3mhs

Jazzz · May 23, 2006

ok - I wasn't disputing that the crash did damage to the impact floors and that some of its energy was absorbed by failure of the structures. What I meant was that the foundations and central core held up very well in terms of taking the hit from the side. It is the fire that the official theory holds as being crucial to the collapse. I should have worded it differently.

editor · May 23, 2006

Jazzz said:
What I meant was that the foundations and central core held up very well in terms of taking the hit from the side.

I thought you said that it has been blown up by invisible explosives? Have you changed your mind on that now?

Jazzz said:
I should have worded it differently.

Perhaps you'd be better off saying nothing at all.

Jazzz · May 24, 2006

No, of course I haven't changed my opinion about the demolition of the WTC. I note you didn't comment about the retraction of the smears against Steve Jones. You can watch his Utah lecture here. I am watching it now.

As you know I was saying that the collapse of the towers by controlled demolition was the aim of the perpatrators a long time ago, and to create the conditions to get away with that, they needed to create substantial fires, and to do this, they needed to fire missiles from switched planes. This was before anyone slowed down the footage to see the missiles, and it was before Professor Jones wrote his paper - a paper which no-one has argued with. I'm certainly not going to change my mind about my preferred theory because it is being confirmed as time goes on.

editor · May 24, 2006

Jazzz said:
No, of course I haven't changed my opinion about the demolition of the WTC. I note you didn't comment about the retraction of the smears against Steve Jones.

So you know better than Leslie Robertson - one of the world's leading structural engineers, yes?

And how about Steve Jones? Tell me why you take his somewhat less-than-fully qualified opinion over someone who actually worked on the World Trade Center.

So has Leslie Robertson got it all wrong then?

Jazzz · May 24, 2006

I'm not 'accepting' anyone's opinion on this issue. As you know, and I repeated, I was saying that the WTC was demolished long ago. I didn't need Steve Jones nor anyone else.

I think there is confusion here over scientists attempting to explain the collapse based on what 99% of people thought was going on a while back, which involved planes and some fire. As such they will make an effort to do so and I don't blame them. What these attempts do not reflect at all is a consideration over whether the official theory is correct, or whether controlled demolition might have been used - because it's not considered possible in the first place.

I think if you asked Leslie Robertson, or any other scientist whether anything about the collapse was not in keeping with controlled demolition I am confident he would be lost for a response.

The evidence for controlled demolition and, as a result, rejecting the entire official theory of 9/11 is very clear. Can you find anyone rebutting Steve Jones' paper? I can't.

editor · May 24, 2006

Jazzz said:
The evidence for controlled demolition and, as a result, rejecting the entire official theory of 9/11 is very clear.

So how come Leslie Robertson - one of the world's leading structural engineers who actually worked on the WTC - doesn't agree?

Why are you paying so much attention to the opinion of little known scientist who is not particularly qualified in this field and completely ignoring the infinitely better qualified opinion of a recognised world authority who clearly knows far, far, far more about the WTC and structural engineering than Jones?

Why?

Jazzz · May 24, 2006

I refer you to my previous post.

editor · May 24, 2006

Jazzz said:
I think if you asked Leslie Robertson, or any other scientist whether anything about the collapse was not in keeping with controlled demolition I am confident he would be lost for a response.

Maybe in your weird alternative dimension where world-renown experts are routinely ignored in preference to complete unknowns, but here's Robertson discussing the collapse of the WTC a year later:

Overcome by emotion, Robertson was silent as he showed haunting, now-familiar images taken in the aftermath of that terrible event.

In a soft voice, he began to talk about the blast power of the jet fuel in the two hijacked planes. As a point of comparison, the bomb that destroyed the Oklahoma City federal building was the equivalent of 192 liters of jet fuel; the Boeing 767 that hit the first tower carried an estimated 45,600 liters.

Like many high-rises built in the 1960s, the Twin Towers were constructed with their weight distributed between a hollow steel core (containing services like elevators) and steel columns around the perimeter, maximizing open floor space. Many believe the older high-rise design, in which steel columns are often encased in concrete, is more fire resistant.

“A lot of people have told me, ‘You should have used more concrete in the structure,’” said Robertson. However, his chart plotting the strength of steel vs. concrete at various temperatures showed that at the incendiary levels that raged in the towers, the two materials become similarly weak.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2002/04/17_alum.html

If you came up to him and insisted that you - with your zero qualifications and zero proof - knew better than he did about the causes of the collapse, I'd suggest he'd laugh in your face. Or worse.

He was one of the two engineers that built the WTC for fuck's sake, so I know who's opinion I'll take.

Jazzz · May 24, 2006

As you wish.

Iranian President suggests 9/11 foul play and cover up

hiraethified

Freedom Next Time

Well-Known Member

hiraethified

the truth don't care

what the dormouse said

Minimum cage, maximum cage

what the dormouse said

Minimum cage, maximum cage

Minimum cage, maximum cage

Freudenschade

jubliado

the truth don't care

Freudenschade

jubliado

Freudenschade

the truth don't care

the truth don't care

Minimum cage, maximum cage

what the dormouse said

hiraethified

the truth don't care

hiraethified

the truth don't care

hiraethified

the truth don't care

hiraethified

the truth don't care

hiraethified

the truth don't care

Similar threads