Al Qaeda a myth says Russian
- Thread starter Raisin D'etre
- Start date
neilh said:
Well, no, not according to Kevin Ryan who until recently was Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories South Bend, Indiana, the division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. who certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In a letter to Frank Gayle Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division Material Science and Engineering Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST, Ryan states:
"The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5).
Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C".
To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.
well the thread title is about the existence or nonexistence of al quaida, so it's a subject that's tied closely to the issue of what or who caused the events on september the 11th and it's no real suprise that it was gonna end up discussing this; it's been this way for pages now.Loki said:
mebbe bigfish doesn't know but is convinced it wasn't aviation fuel; that seems to be the impression i'm getting; although it would clear things up a bit for bigfish to come out and say either he/she doesn't know or say what he/she thinks.editor said:
just out of interest, what's the source/link to that ryan quote you just posted?
editor said:
After three years of these threads, you still don't know?
The fireball is outside of the building, leaving little more than a residue inside it. Hardly enough to bring the building down. But a passport can survive eh?
That leaves only one option: explosives.
And you call them invisible. Well, of course they are. The only time they're visible is when they're unprimed.
fela fan said:
fela fan said:
How do you reconcile those two answers, fela?
Lock&Light said:How do you reconcile those two answers, fela?
Easily mate!
I don't come on and say the same thing time and time again. You just automatically sing 'conspiracy thread/theory'. 'Bin'.
I have somewhat more variety to my posts (and i think i need to put a
in here, but i wasn't sure.)
fela fan said:
I think you're confusing me with another poster, fela. You haven't explained how you reconcile those two answers.
editor said:
And neilh rightly recognised your tactics and called you for them.
You insisted bigfish give you an answer. I gave my answer, the one you reckon bigfish thinks, and then hey presto, you start threatening the bin.
It's so easy to see your methods, try being more subtle.
fela you know I like you. But it's not me playing the same old same old music; at no point did I introduce the WTC 9/11 conspiracy into this discussion!fela fan said:
The posts are no longer about AQ are they? We're recycling the same things that have been debated over and over and binned.
editor said:
That is simply not true. What is new is the NIST analysis and the examination it is being subjected to here... which is precisely what you don't want to see and so with your usual bag of tricks you hope to wriggle your way out of having to deal with the howling contradiction bearing down on your crumbling position.
editor said:
Once again:
So you're view is the fire inside tower 2 was fueled by kerosine, even though we all witnessed the huge fireball of aviation fuel explode outside the buildings east face?
So, please, can you tell me editor, how can the aircrafts fuel load:
1. be seen to explode outside the building by millions of people and
2. at the same time cause a "catastrophic fuel fire" inside the building?
Any chance of a straight answer?
Loki said:
Yes i know that mate, but it doesn't alter my opinions!
All i know is that any thread about 911 or considered to have become one brings on posters, yourself amongst them, who just call for the bin, and reduce the whole thing to what you call a conspiracy theory. It rubbishes the efforts of posters, and the time they put in to contributing to this forum.
I'd reckon there's loads of inconsequential threads in other forums that never get called for binning. I just think that if one does not like the content of a thread, click on another one. It's called freedom to listen (or not).
Do you read every bit of your newspaper, or do you skip bits?
editor said:
So, bigfish complies with your request and gives you a straight answer. What will then happen? Oh, wait a minute... you've already made that clear, look:
"Spout the same old conspiraloon bollocks and the bin awaits.
It's as simple as that!"
Why do you do it?
editor
hiraethified
Are you stupid?fela fan said:
If bigfish is simply repeating the same old shite, albeit in a different clothes, then the bin is the right place for it. I've had enough of the same old evidence free shit being posted up here again and again and again because it's FUCKING BORING. If there's nothing new being said, what's the point of letting obsessed posters endlessly repeat it?
Because I'm not having these boards becoming a one-stop honeypot resource for every conspiracy-regurgitating fruitloop in the land.fela fan said:
After 911, under the guise of responding to new threats of terrorism and removing regimes that the US declare terrorist havens, the US administration has developed "the most militarised foreign policy mahcine in modern history," writes James Sterngold. The policy goes beyond resorting to military action or the threat of action but is now about constructing military bases, called "lily pad" by the Pentagon, from Uzbekistan to Djibouti. They are not just viewed as the means of defending host countries but as launch pad for future "preventive wars" and military missions.
The administration argues that this policy is needed to remove regimes that support terrorists and "to confront new threats of a terrorist enemy that operates globally, preys on weak governments and targets civilians." The president also declared that, "In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act."
After 911, US policy built on world bases
The administration argues that this policy is needed to remove regimes that support terrorists and "to confront new threats of a terrorist enemy that operates globally, preys on weak governments and targets civilians." The president also declared that, "In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act."
In Septemeber 2002 the president declared, "It is time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength," and detailed two significant new uses of that might: pre-emptively attacking would-be enemies, as in Iraq, and preventing rivals from even considering matching U.S. strength. It was a new assertion of U.S. primacy, not through diplomacy or economics but through unquestioned military domination.
"There's clearly been a militarization of foreign policy, initially justified on the basis of the events of 9/11," said Charlene Barshefsky, the United States trade representative under President Bill Clinton. "Unfortunately, the military portion of the policy has now defined our entire policy."
Under the Bush administration's plans, some older deployments in areas such as South Korea, Japan and Germany may be reduced, but more troops are being shifted to the most volatile and dangerous regions of the globe. It is, experts say, the most extensive realignment of U.S. power in the past half century.
Writing last year in the normally dry journal Foreign Affairs, Kurt Campbell and Celeste Johnson Ward of the Center for Strategic and International Studies found the sheer scale of the shift so profound that they reached for a cosmic analogy, calling it "a sort of military 'big bang.' "
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq war, articulated some of the thinking behind the new posture in an interview with the New York Times in 2002, saying the function of the string of new bases in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa "may be more political than actually military.''
The new installations, he added, would "send a message to everybody, including strategically important countries like Uzbekistan, that we have a capacity to come back in and will come back in -- we're not just going to forget about them.''
This is why it is urgent that the myth of al Qaeda be confronted head on. It seems that the US will use the fear of terror when it suits them or resort to regime change under the guise of democratisation and liberation to advance its global dominance."There's clearly been a militarization of foreign policy, initially justified on the basis of the events of 9/11," said Charlene Barshefsky, the United States trade representative under President Bill Clinton. "Unfortunately, the military portion of the policy has now defined our entire policy."
Under the Bush administration's plans, some older deployments in areas such as South Korea, Japan and Germany may be reduced, but more troops are being shifted to the most volatile and dangerous regions of the globe. It is, experts say, the most extensive realignment of U.S. power in the past half century.
Writing last year in the normally dry journal Foreign Affairs, Kurt Campbell and Celeste Johnson Ward of the Center for Strategic and International Studies found the sheer scale of the shift so profound that they reached for a cosmic analogy, calling it "a sort of military 'big bang.' "
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, an architect of the Iraq war, articulated some of the thinking behind the new posture in an interview with the New York Times in 2002, saying the function of the string of new bases in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa "may be more political than actually military.''
The new installations, he added, would "send a message to everybody, including strategically important countries like Uzbekistan, that we have a capacity to come back in and will come back in -- we're not just going to forget about them.''
After 911, US policy built on world bases
i'm undecided on how existent/nonexistent/organised/present al qaeda are, but i think the myth that has to be "confronted head on" is that they're the sole reason for US military expansion, and i do think even if there are some folk seriously organised under the Al-q banner that even when this is wiped out the americans won't tend to let on, say right that's everything sorted now and wander off home.Raisin D'etre said:
editor
hiraethified
No. Its asking certain posters not to endlessly repeat the same thing over and over and over again, ad infinitum.DrJazzz said:
You - and a handful of other 9/11-obsessed posters - have had endless opportunities to freely express every single doubt and supposed 'anomaly' about the events of 9/11 here.
But as I said last year, I am not willing to have the exact same conspiraloon nonsense being repeated here in ever decreasing circles.
You've all had ample opportunity to try and convince others here with your endlessly recycled yarns about explosive-laden WTC towers, Mike Yarwood phone calls, pretend planes, invisible missiles, invisible planes, holographic planes, invisible 'pods', missile firing planes etc etc.
The fact that you've failed miserably in your task should be telling you something.
Similar threads
- Locked