Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 6 votes

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
3683 replies to this topic

#1501    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 17 April 2013 - 11:36 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 17 April 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

It is all very simple; You have yet to provide a shred of evidence that explosives were used at ground zero. You might want to review this link.

The squibs, matching those of known demolitions, are evidence of explosives.  Together with many other features which match those of known demolitions (and none of the features of natural or fire induced collapse), it is corroborating evidence that the WTC buildings were deliberately demolished.

The link you provided suffers from the same problem as the suggestion you already made - air pressure from compressed floors would exit all across/around each level throughout the collapse; it does not account for the focussed/isolated nature of the squibs actually witnessed which match those of known demolitions.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1502    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,312 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:26 AM

View PostQ24, on 17 April 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

The squibs, matching those of known demolitions,...

The squibs emanating from the WTC buildings are the result of compressed air and nothing to do with explosives, which was evident because there is no evidence of explosions in the videos nor even  heard on audio, not to mention no explosions were detected on seismic monitors in the area. To further add, the French Verinage demolition method is the icing on the cake because is has shown that squibs can be produced by the active collapse of  a building.



No sound of explosions here either.



Edited by skyeagle409, 18 April 2013 - 12:38 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1503    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 18 April 2013 - 01:32 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 18 April 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:

The squibs emanating from the WTC buildings are the result of compressed air and nothing to do with explosives, which was evident because there is no evidence of explosions in the videos nor even  heard on audio, not to mention no explosions were detected on seismic monitors in the area.

Repeating the same lines over and over does not address that air pressure from compressed floors would exit all across/around each level throughout the collapse; it does not account for the focussed/isolated nature of the squibs actually witnessed in the WTC collapses which match those of known demolitions.


View Postskyeagle409, on 18 April 2013 - 12:26 AM, said:

To further add, the French Verinage demolition method is the icing on the cake because is has shown that squibs can be produced by the active collapse of  a building.

Like the pictures you posted, there is no Verinage demolition where the squibs witnessed during the WTC collapses and known demolitions are apparent.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1504    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,312 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:05 AM

View PostQ24, on 18 April 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

Repeating the same lines over and over does not address that air pressure from compressed floors would exit all across/around each level throughout the collapse; it does not account for the focussed/isolated nature of the squibs actually witnessed in the WTC collapses which match those of known demolitions.

Impossible! There were no explosions seen nor heard as the WTC buildings collapsed. Explosions make loud noises, but there are no sounds of bomb explosions and you can even review the  videos to prove my case because nowhere in those videos are explosions.

Quote

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall."

http://www.represent...Explosives.html


Edited by skyeagle409, 18 April 2013 - 04:24 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1505    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,312 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:53 AM

View PostQ24, on 18 April 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

Like the pictures you posted, there is no Verinage demolition where the squibs witnessed during the WTC collapses and known demolitions are apparent.

There are no sound of explosions as the WTC buildings collapse.

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

Quote

The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations, and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.

Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.

The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones". On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.

Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zdeněk Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).

Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."




Edited by skyeagle409, 18 April 2013 - 04:56 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1506    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,312 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:21 AM

View PostQ24, on 17 April 2013 - 11:36 PM, said:

The squibs, matching those of known demolitions, are evidence of explosives.  Together with many other features which match those of known demolitions (and none of the features of natural or fire induced collapse), it is corroborating evidence that the WTC buildings were deliberately demolished.

The link you provided suffers from the same problem as the suggestion you already made - air pressure from compressed floors would exit all across/around each level throughout the collapse; it does not account for the focussed/isolated nature of the squibs actually witnessed which match those of known demolitions.

Let's listen in on what real explosions sound like vs. the collapse of the WTC buildings.



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1507    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,947 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:50 AM

View PostQ24, on 18 April 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

Repeating the same lines over and over does not address that air pressure from compressed floors would exit all across/around each level throughout the collapse; it does not account for the focussed/isolated nature of the squibs actually witnessed in the WTC collapses which match those of known demolitions.
I do love it when you display your ignorance of the physics with such confidence.  Isolated squibs is exactly what would be expected.

This is what actually happens: the pressure builds up, applying a load to each window.  The weakest of the windows breaks, producing the squib effect.  The air escapes through the broken window, reducing the pressure and hence the loads on the other windows.  The only circumstance in which more than one window is likely to break is if the pressure build-up is rapid enough to require the pressure reduction from more than one broken window to counter it.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#1508    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:14 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 18 April 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

I do love it when you display your ignorance of the physics with such confidence.  Isolated squibs is exactly what would be expected.

This is what actually happens: the pressure builds up, applying a load to each window.  The weakest of the windows breaks, producing the squib effect.  The air escapes through the broken window, reducing the pressure and hence the loads on the other windows.  The only circumstance in which more than one window is likely to break is if the pressure build-up is rapid enough to require the pressure reduction from more than one broken window to counter it.

Actually your description perfectly corroborates the physics I raised.  By your own account, it only comes down to whether any pressure build-up(s) were ‘gradual’ or ‘rapid’.

I am working on the basis that the air pressure build-up would necessarily be very rapid, provided the rate of collapse and given the ability to blow out a window at all.  But then comes the contradiction that the squibs do not occur in more widespread locations.  So the isolated/focussed squibs were not as a result of rapid air pressure build-up due to the widespread collapses.

The gradual build-up that you require in your description to create an isolated/focussed squib would actually give the air time to disperse, either continuing down the lift shafts and stairwells or forced back up through the destroyed structure, either of which provide far less resistance than blowing out a thick double-glazed window built into the structure.  So neither could the isolated/focussed squibs be a result of gradual air pressure build-up.

So we see that neither a ‘gradual’ or ‘rapid’ air pressure build-up due to the collapses can account for the squibs.  We know an answer that can account for the squibs - evidenced in both the WTC case and many examples of known controlled demolitions, but none in a natural or fire induced event – charges to progress collapse of the structures.

Edited by Q24, 18 April 2013 - 03:16 PM.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1509    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,312 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 18 April 2013 - 04:03 PM

View PostQ24, on 18 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

So we see that neither a ‘gradual’ or ‘rapid’ air pressure build-up due to the collapses can account for the squibs.  We know an answer that can account for the squibs - evidenced in both the WTC case and many examples of known controlled demolitions, but none in a natural or fire induced event – charges to progress collapse of the structures.

I don't think you understand what you have been posting. For an example, you've posted a photo that depicted compressed air emanating from the side of one of the WTC buildings and you incorrectly blamed an explosive as responsible. May I remind you that as the WTC buildings were collapsing there was no sound of explosions.

Quote

Squibs

Conspiracy theories are often built around anomalies which are difficult to prove either way. The "assumptionists" are convinced they know what the anomaly is. One such anomaly is the so called "Squibs"

They say this anomaly is an explosive charge going off and a sure sign of Controlled Demolition. It's often followed by more video of charges going off in real Controlled Demolitions. But if we examine the anomaly closely, we see these [would be] explosives work in reverse to an explosive blast. They tend to spurt out and then increase with time. An explosive works in reverse to this. Its strongest point is the moment the charge is set off. It doesn't increase its explosive strength with time.
So what is this then? Why would debris jet out of windows far below the collapse?

It could be a number of things, by themselves or in combination. One reasonable explanation is a buildup of pressure caused by the compression of air between the floors as they pancaked, (Please read the link to explain the NIST / Pancaking issue) pushed debris out of the already broken windows and/or open vents. Another is falling debris like elevators or elevator parts/motors and/or columns free falling down the elevator shafts and slamming into lower floors creating debris. In a sense the floors are large plungers and the towers are just one big Syringe during the collapse.

During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe.  The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them.  It's said that the towers were about 95% air.  But not all the air went so easily out the window space.  There was just as much window as there was steel perimeter columns.  So the air takes the path of least resistance to the core.  The core is collapsing and thick debris is preventing the air from going up.  Its next path of least resistance would be to go down the core. The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could.  According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core...


http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

It was very simple to understand and I've mentioned an experiment using a syringe to make my point some time ago. There was never evidence of explosives at ground zero.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 April 2013 - 04:36 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1510    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:30 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 18 April 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

I don't think you understand what you have been posting. For an example, you've posted a photo that depicted compressed air emanating from the side of one of the WTC buildings and you incorrectly blamed an explosive as responsible. May I remind you that as the WTC buildings were collapsing there was no sound of explosions.


It was very simple to understand and I've mentioned an experiment using a syringe to make my point some time ago. There was never evidence of explosives at ground zero.

I know you don’t understand that my whole argument is about why explosives are responsible rather than compressed air due to the collapses.  All your method consists of is to parrot your beliefs, never addressing any argument/challenge put forth.  I actually engage in discussion, think about and explain reason for my conclusions, but that’s a hopeless task with you.

I will mention that the collapsing building itself produced a noise level greater than that which would be produced by explosives if the seismic record is anything to go by, i.e. the sound of explosions would be drowned out by that of the collapsing building.  The early stage of collapse, prior to large debris reaching ground level, produced a reading in excess of even the plane impacts.  That means even the large boom of the plane impacts would have been drowned out had they occurred during the collapses.

The syringe example was already highlighted to be in error in my post #1497, which you did not respond to, before coming back with the same mistake - hardly unexpected by your track record.

And, to fight fire with fire, there is huge evidence of explosives and the demoltion at ground zero when all is accounted for.  It is an important factor that all the features of collapse – before, during and after - can be explained through the one answer, demolition, whereas others must invoke a vast array of quite disparate and contentious explanations to maintain belief in the official story.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#1511    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,312 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:34 PM

View PostQ24, on 18 April 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

I know you don’t understand that my whole argument is about why explosives are responsible rather than compressed air due to the collapses.

Actually, you don't  understand what you are posting. No sound of explosions should have told  you something.

Quote

The syringe example was already highlighted to be in error in my post #1497, which you did not respond to, before coming back with the same mistake - hardly unexpected by your track record.

That doesn't work for you. The  interior of the WTC buildings comprised of a large amount of air and as the WTC buildings collapsed, that huge amount of compressed air is going somewhere with explosive force, which has nothing to do with explosives. Demolition experts do not agree with you either. Do you remember this?

Quote

An Analysis of the Collapse of the WTC Towers 1,2, and 7 from an Explosives and  a Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."  


http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

We’ve now read many reports from professionals on the scene about the condition of WTC 7. All of these firsthand reports are in agreement that the building was in imminent danger of collapse due to the damage and fires it sustained.

We’ve also seen that WTC 7’s collapse did not look or sound like an explosive demolition, and we’ve seen still photos and videos that show an immense amount of smoke pouring from the building’s south and east side.

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac




So once again, the structural engineering and demolition communities reject the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.

Quote

And, to fight fire with fire, there is huge evidence of explosives and the demoltion at ground zero when all is accounted for.

There were no bomb explosions at ground zero and any planted explosives where the aircraft struck would have been detonated and there are no secondary bomb explosions in the WTC videos.

You have to understand that people here were not born yesterday. :no:


Edited by skyeagle409, 18 April 2013 - 06:06 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1512    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,312 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:17 PM

View PostQ24, on 18 April 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

The syringe example was already highlighted to be in error in my post #1497, which you did not respond to, before coming back with the same mistake - hardly unexpected by your track record.

How amusing that you would say such a thing when the syringe explanation is understand even by high school science students. I guess you never took a science class.

Quote

And, to fight fire with fire, there is huge evidence of explosives and the demoltion at ground zero...
]

No one heard bomb explosions at ground zero and to underline that point, you have failed to provide evidence to backup your claim.


Quote

...when all is accounted for.  It is an important factor that all the features of collapse – before, during and after - can be explained through the one answer, demolition, whereas others must invoke a vast array of quite disparate and contentious explanations to maintain belief in the official story.

Don't forget this:

Quote

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academiareviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

That explains why you have been unable to provide evidence of explosives at ground zero. This video also proves you wrong because no bomb explosions are seen nor heard as WTC7 collapsed.



Edited by skyeagle409, 18 April 2013 - 06:29 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1513    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,947 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 18 April 2013 - 06:45 PM

View PostQ24, on 18 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

Actually your description perfectly corroborates the physics I raised.  By your own account, it only comes down to whether any pressure build-up(s) were ‘gradual’ or ‘rapid’.

I am working on the basis that the air pressure build-up would necessarily be very rapid, provided the rate of collapse and given the ability to blow out a window at all.  But then comes the contradiction that the squibs do not occur in more widespread locations.  So the isolated/focussed squibs were not as a result of rapid air pressure build-up due to the widespread collapses.

The gradual build-up that you require in your description to create an isolated/focussed squib would actually give the air time to disperse, either continuing down the lift shafts and stairwells or forced back up through the destroyed structure, either of which provide far less resistance than blowing out a thick double-glazed window built into the structure.  So neither could the isolated/focussed squibs be a result of gradual air pressure build-up.

So we see that neither a ‘gradual’ or ‘rapid’ air pressure build-up due to the collapses can account for the squibs.  We know an answer that can account for the squibs - evidenced in both the WTC case and many examples of known controlled demolitions, but none in a natural or fire induced event – charges to progress collapse of the structures.
Your logic is amazing, on a par with claiming that life is impossible on Earth because it might be too hot or it might be too cold but it could not possibly be just right.How exactly in your world does the extremely rapid pressure rise of an explosion manage to blow out an isolated window?

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#1514    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 19 April 2013 - 12:09 PM

Jesus......lol....Here we go again!! :blink:
  • It can't be compressed air, for the simple reason that we would see the air and debris continuously being pushed out at each point as the collapse progresses as the air is being continuously compressed. What we see being expelled out of the sides of the building is a puff, in other words a short sharp ejection pushing out the air and then suddenly stopping even though the collapse continues supposedly building more pressure.
  • It can't be compressed air because at the point where it escaped, there would be an even bigger continuous puff being ejected out around the same areas as the pressure built up. Unless these areas were big enough to continuously decrease the pressure as the collapse continued, which would mean there would be no further placed needed for any more ejections, which evidently is not true because more of them continue to appear further down the building.
  • It can't be compressed air because we see these puffs come out some 40 plus floors below the collapse zone which then disappears, for another one to appear many floors above it and still below the collapse zone for that to disappear too as the collapse continues. Unless panto debunkers want to claim that after being expelled out of the side of the building, this compressed air did a complete U-turn and instead of escaping through it's original route, it travelled through the entire building only to escape elsewhere. Magic air! lol
  • It can't be compressed air because there are plenty of places for any trapped air to escape at the point of collapse, unless panto debunkers think the collapse points around the collapse zone was air tight! :blink:

Whatever is being energy being expelled out appears and then dies out in all of the instances where we see them appear. That alone debunks and rules out compressed air because it would continue to expel air and debris out of the building as the collapse continues.

Now I know panto debunkers will want to avoid addressing the above issues, or that a certain member will just spam the forum with links which do not address any of the issues I've mentioned, but until these points are addressed, then I'm afraid the compressed air doesn't have a leg to stand on.

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#1515    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 19 April 2013 - 01:26 PM

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Hi Stundie

My apologies for the lateness of my reply, I have been extraordinarily busy of late, and have been mostly doing shorter postings. I have been intending to return to this for some time to adress the points you have brought up.
Hi pysche,


Don't worry. I understand sometimes that people are busy, just as I am busy sometimes and don't have a moment to post anything.

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

And this is a good place to start, I cannot see how you see it as intent. I think the US is realising that War offers casualties, and they are trying to be realists and account for what has taken place. It is also not the sort of information that is published because of the situation with CT'ers. I do not think they deny culpability do they? But tis gruesome information is required to analyse a war, and Americas impact.

With the situation in the early 2,000's what do you mean by "The US couldn't have that"? The uprising had nothing to do with the US, these people were grateful for the help against the Soviets, but then turned on the US, like some sort of mass paranoia. Get out or we will kick you out! It seems rather ungrateful to me to be frank.
As far as I know, the terror of the Wolf Brigade exceed the US involvement, with even local legends about them, but the US only helped them in Mosul, and as far as I know, for a just cause. I cannot see much corroboration beyond this, and I think Bremer is as much a casualty of the press as anyone mentioned in this thread. Bremer stated that many soldiers simply left after the fall of Baghdad, some to protect their own families from the rampant looting. From what I read, the decision was not made lightly, and the others that were involved in this decision such General John Abizaid seem to have faded into the sunset. Bremer claims they did consider two alternatives: To recall the old army or to rebuild a new army with "both vetted members of the old army and new recruits." According to Bremer, Abizaid liked the second alternative. All in all, at least this decision has thought and reasoning behind it, the reactions from those who were rampaging is just wanton violence.

I agree with Rawanda, but I think the same applies to the US, if they could stop all civillian casualties, I am sure they would have, but somethings, like soldiers who lose it, are out of their control.
But it's not just figures, these are people, human beings.  I highly doubt that the US has accounted for what has happened in Iraq and you yourself have said that it's gruesome to analyse a war, but I would argue that is more than gruesome having to live in it than just analysing it. I'm not sure if the US deny culpability but what I was addressing was that you thought that the US were not responsible for all of the deaths. While I agree they are not directly responsible for the attacks, the actions of the US in supporting of one side over another by creating divisions and subsequent civil war which has led to the causalities is responsible.


The problem is that out of these causalities if we assume that these figures are correct. It means that out of the 150,000 who died a violent, if 122,000 are innocent, then that is 27,000 people who are presumed guilty of something. Is it OK to kill 4 innocent men, women and children to kill 1 presumed guilty person?? I would answer "No".  

If you think its OK and answer "Yes" then imagine this statistic being applied to your own country for a moment.  I think you are from Australia, so would it be OK for the government of Australia to kill 4 innocent men, women or child to kill 1 presumed guilty person. I say presumed guilty because none of these people have ever been tried in a court of law, so that 1 person could potentially be innocent. I'm sure you would be up in arms if this was to happen in your own country unless you have a masochistic side, or a potential get them at all costs megalomaniac attitude, yet this is acceptable for another country, collateral damage, causalities of war. As far as I'm concerned, it's not acceptable for any country.

The bombings at the Boston Marathon were shocking and it was awful that it killed and injured people. I have full sympathy for those people who were killed and injured by the attacks. But bear in mind that this is happening on a much larger scale pretty much every single day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet I do not see the same sympathy for those people who are innocent men, women and children, bystanders just like the people at Boston.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...ve-attacks.html <---Bombings 15th April, kills at least 55, no figures for how many were injured
http://edition.cnn.c.../iraq-violence/ <---Bombs on 17th April kills 3 people and injures 16 other people.
http://edition.cnn.c...ence/index.html <---Blast in Baghdad on 18th April, kills 27 people, 4 of them children and injures 51 other people.
http://www.france24....tacks-eve-polls <---Today 8 people killed in mortar bombings and injures 27 others.

Since the Boston Marathon explosions, there have been 93 people killed from bombings and explosions in Iraq, yet I do not see the same outpouring of sympathy for those in Iraq. Other than racist attitudes towards people from the middle east as being less equal than those from the west, I do not understand why there is a lack of sympathy for those in Iraq.  We have had the new networks reporting and spending many hours covering the attacks in Boston, but literally only a few minutes of reports on the attacks in Iraq, even though they are more severe and graver than anything the US has seen or probably ever see.

This contradiction is clear as daylight for me, yet for others, it can be easily justified by just removing the human element away from the statistics. None of the statics I have provided would be acceptable in any of the countries of the western hemisphere, yet we allow this to go on in other countries which probably not be happening if it wasn't for the US/UK led invasion of Iraq. Who might I add had nothing to do with 9/11 and even if we assume that  Osama Bin Laden was behind 9/11, he and Saddam Hussein didn't even like each other. Which makes a mockery of the reasons why Iraq was invaded and occupied.

What I mean by "The US couldn't have that", is that when it became clear to the Iraqis that the US were not leaving and occupying Iraq, then they couldn't have both the Sunni and Shia's united against the occupation. I'm sure you are aware of the tactic of divide and conquer, so this is what the US decided to by helping the Wolf Brigade. This was leaked in the Iraqi war logs by Bradley Manning. James J Steele who was a veteran of this kind of guerilla campaign in El Salvador was advising the Wolf Brigade which was headed Abu Walid and formed by Iyad Allawi of the interim government, to crack down and terrorise insurgents against the US occupation. These guys used to be Hussains Republican Guards and they were not shy of torturing of people. Then you have Frago 234 which is a fragmentary order for the US not to investigate Iraqi on Iraqi crime, meaning that the Wolf Brigade were essentially untouchable. The US even went as far as handing over detainees to them. By covertly funding and helping to maintain the sectarian violence, it allowed the US to remain in occupation. This is corroboration is clearly documented in the Iraqi war logs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/28/iraq-war-logs-iraq
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/24/iraq-war-logs-us-iraqi-torture
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/25/iraq-torture-no-secret
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/8085604/Wikileaks-war-logs-who-are-the-Wolf-Brigade.html

Even if we assumed that the US involvement was just at Mosul, then the US is supporting exactly the same kind of regime that they  have just overthrown. Is one type of torturer of people better than another type of torturer?? Saddam was all of the things that the Wolf Brigade were, so it makes a mockery that the US are supporting them to destabilise Iraq when the people of Iraq were united as it soon became apparent that the US was not keen to leave.

Sorry but I have to disagree with your statement  that the US could stop civilian casualties they would because clearly there is documented evidence which shows this isn't the case. I understand that soldiers can lose the plot or go out of control, but the US was actively supportiing these soldiers. And this why Rwanda is not applicable, the US, UN or France wasn't actively supporting the atrocities.

Ignorance and turning a blind eye is one thing but actively supporting is another. This is why I can't compare the two.

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:


I do not think the term is misused, whilst it has many meanings, and I understand the ideal is a personal struggle, but this meaning is abhorrent. The Jihad to make the globe Muslim is not honorable. No matter how you look at Islam, I fail to understand how Muslims justify worshiping the Hadith. All it is is a handbook of violence.
As I said, I still think Jihad is misused and like you said, it has many meanings, therefore if it has many meanings, then surely it can be misused or misapplied if it is hard to define the meaning. You ask most people what Jihad is, most will automatically think it's a Islamic terrorist committing suicide for 72 virgins or whatever it is. It was what I believed it to be because this is what the media told us and I didn't know enough about the Muslim faith to question it. It wasn't until it was pointed out to me by a friend whose not actually a Muslim but has many Muslim friends to point out the meaning.


I fail to understand how anyone justifies worshipping anything, whether it is Hadith or any other religious beliefs but when any religion is taken at face value, they all have their problems. And of course, there are those who want the muslimification (is that a word?..lol) of the entire world, but there are plenty of more moderate Muslims, who do not. Faith is a hard argument because faith itself has no intrinsic meaning, it's just a strong belief. Whether that belief is right or wrong depends on your world view, while you think Hadith is wrong and I agree in principle, there are those who think that it isn't. Just because they have differing views, I can't justify outlawing it considering that those who live in their society, with it's own social contracts between the governed have the right to chose how they govern themselves, whether it is based on loosely on religious laws like Christianity here in the UK or strictly like Hadith is in Muslim countries.

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:


I see what you are saying about the US, but I think all countries and organisation try to protect their own, that is part of being in an organisation. And I agree, sometimes organisations make the wrong decision for what they call "The Greater Good", as with the Catholic Church. If you look at the support the Bali Bombers received for their murderous rampage, this is more than alive in the Muslim Faith just as much as it is in the Catholic faith. Peadophillia I agree is abhorrent, and to my way of thinking deserves castration at the very least, so does murder.
Of course, protecting your own is what all countries usually do and I couldn't agree with you more.


However I do not see any difference again between those who supported the Bali bombers or those who supported the Catholic Priests involved with covering up the paedophilia  They both are abhorrent and deplorable. Whether you think it a murderous rampage is more alive in the Muslim is subjective. I could argue that Tony Blair, who is also a Catholic led a murderous campaign with his involvement in the war on terror in Iraq.

Using religion as an excuse to attack or do terrible things is no justification for it but people doing terrible things in the name of religion, is not really a valid argument when there are plenty of those who will actively support a religion but not support the terrible act/attrocity being committed.

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Too many Imans preach hate, but what gets me is these are indeed Imans, people in power, the Catholic Church covered up, and whilst that is abhorrent I agree, it did not promote people who outwardly preached Peadophillia.
When the Catholic Church was ousted, it was red faced, it regretted the actions, and made apology, and that might mean nothing to the victims, I understand that, but does Islam show remorse for Bali? 911? They could have done more to begin with, and I agree, lost their morals altogether when they allowed a cover up, but I do not see the crime as the intent of the Church, whereas those that worship the Hadith each and every day promise Allah that they will cut of our Western heads and fingers. How does one do that, and then state they believe in peace?
I wouldn't say they were red faced, they only regretted their actions because they were caught. This was known many years ago and it wasn't until it was realised that it was systemic did the apology come.


Indonesia is a predominately a Islamic country as most of the population are muslim, they condemned the bombings and have held commemorations on the anniversary. Malaysia where the bombers came from are predominately muslims also condemned the attacks. I seem to think Saudi Arabia condemned them too. I think you are taking the term Islamic and applying the extreme versions of Islam to all.

I suppose explaining the contradiction of believing in peace while cutting the fingers off or heads of people, whether it's Westerners or their own people isn't much different than a country based on Christian beliefs forgetting what Jesus said about forgiveness and executing its own people and others. Cutting off heads might seem barbaric in comparison with electrocuting someone but again, its still the act of killing and neither is right. This is why I can't take either religion seriously when there is obvious flaws in how their religious laws apply.

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:


I did not know that, thank you for the link, but I feel the link also explained the problem here.

But doctors and nurses are prohibited by healthcare professionals' ethical guidelines from participating in or assisting with executions, and the technicians involved have no specific training in administering anaesthetics

Trained executioners might be the answer to the pain question. I respect your position so I will not argue the point, but feel we shall simply agree to disagree here. But in favour of your argument, I feel eyewitness testimony needs to be seriously re-evaluated, the Griffith Innocence Project I feel is indeed direct proof of this. I have no doubt innocent people have died. The evidence must be absolute, not as it has been in antiquity.
As I said, killing people is inhumane. I watched a documentary about whether if there was a more human way to kill people, would more people support the death penalty. It was quite a shock because an experiment they did on some pigs was to put food in a chamber with this gas that was killing them, but they would pass out and fall out of the chamber, then they would try again to go after the food. What this was suppose to prove that the pigs were willing to kill themselves because there was no trauma or suffering in trying to eat the food. Therefore this gas could be used on death row as a more human way, when they spoke to pro death penalty groups and people, they dismissed the idea of killing those on death row more humanely. It appeared to be that it wasn't just enough to kill them, it was killing them painfully was retribution, almost in revenge for what crimes they had committed.


I found the whole thing disturbing on many levels, one was the thought of humane killing as a way of executions which I think are never the correct way to dish out justice, could be justified because the person doesn't suffer. But what is more disturbing is that there are far too many cases of people on death row who are innocent. If you do not execute someone, if mistakes are made, then corrections can be made but with executions, there is no corrections. One innocent person is still one to many and because justice and law isn't always right, I feel it shouldn't be able to make such judgements based on the fact the law is not infallible.

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Indeed, and such a shame. I would pay money to know what he thinks of Truthers.
I would think that he would have a lot to reveal.


However, you have to remembers that some of those who lost their families and loved ones 9/11 are also truthers. The Jersey Girls who were instrumental in pushing for a new investigation are also truthers, they criticise the commission.

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

I do not just prefer the Western way of life, I completely feel Islam had it's chance, and has made a mockery of society  Being able to kill your daughter in this day and age for speaking to another non family male, or stoning adulterers to death should not be allowed to happen in today world under any law or religion. This cannot happen in the west, no court will order stoning or honor killing. It should not even be considered today, that is truly barbarism at it's very worst, and that fact that people have been brainwashed to accept this barbarism even worse. For me, that alone is reason to abandon Islam altogether. And it shows to me that the Middle East has people on power more evil than most US citizens could ever imagine. They make Bush look like a girl scout.
As I said, I cannot dictate what others decide is right or wrong. Even though I agree that honor killings are ridiculous reasons or stoning to death is a horrendous act, it is the choice of those who live within that society. And I have to respect their freedoms even if I think its jurassic thinking.


View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Give me time :P

Thank you for the title, I will procure a copy of The Power Of Nightmares, and watch it.

I have read quite a bit about Tora Bora, PBS has a program specifically dedicated to it in it's Al Qaeda files series as well. There was no doubt that Bin Laden was there, but there was also a high possibility of civillian casualty and repercussion. The risk was great, however, altercation was still to be had. The plan was to only keep 800 US boots on Pakistan soil. Some called it a plan, some called it military incompetence, in the end however, the traget was acquired.
Oh I am under no illusion that Bin Laden was there too, but it is clear that the soldiers were led on a wild goose chase and they even say as much in the documentary. I think he was given a safe passage and I can't believe he was sitting in the compound for all of those year, it doesn't make any sense.


I think you can watch it online but it is one of the best documentaries I have watched regarding the world of Neoconservatives and extreme Islamists and goes in to great length to explain both of their ideologies and that even though they are fighting against each other, they both share the same enemies, liberals.

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

I guess it depends on what official story that is, at the end of the day, I think it is well proven that some maniac religious zealots killed a great many people for a religious war, that started with the US helping the middle east stay safe from the Soviets. Really, they should have pet the Soviets sort the problem.
The official story is what was reported in the 9/11 commission and the NIST/FEMA reports.


I understand why you would call them religious zealots but did they kill for a religious war? I do not think the war is about religion as such and again, if you watch The Power of Nightmares it explains how Osama Bin Laden was influence by Sayyid Qutb who came to America but was horrified by their culture such as men and women being allowed to dance together and Jazz. I think his ideology and Osama is about them not wanting to be occupied by US armies bases or having these western ideas influenced on them.

Of course, I think their motivations would be religiously motivated but I do not think there battle is with another religion, just western principles and culture.

View Postpsyche101, on 11 April 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:


I am not surprised that some details are sketchy, I doubt these men ever envisaged themselves coming into this situation. They probably did make a few things up too look good, but I do not see that as supporting the Truther Movement. Those guys have no morals, and are almost as bad the the fundies themselves.
Its not that some of the details that are sketchy, it's the fact that some of these details contradict each other and some of them are not based on any verifiable facts. The people in power had envisaged this situation before, the Bojinka Plot was well known and using planes as missiles was played out in plenty of military exercises before 9/11. Here is an exercise simulating a plane crash inside the pentagon using cardboard.


Posted Image


I totally agree that those guys (Cheney, Rumsfeld Wolfowitz) have no morals and if you believe them to be as bad as the fundamentalists who attacked the US on 9/11, then I do not see why it is a stretch of the imagination to think they could have been involved or at the very least, been aware of the plot and allowed it to happen.

These posts seem to be getting longer rather than shorter, so the next reply will be much shorter and sweeter....hopefully.

Cheers

Stundie :)

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.