This is a great 9-11 documentary if you have the time and speed to watch it. I really did not watch the TV much during the 9-11 incident because it really made me scared and sick to my stomach. They kept playing the same clips over and over again. In this short movie you can see the some very good close ups of the Towers collapsing and other footage I had never seen on TV. Even after all these years it still haunts me.
I suppose what bothers me is after the towers fell, we went after the wrong people. 18 of the terrorists that crashed into the towers were Saudis. They were also fairly well off and educated. Yet we pretended it was some poor people in Afghanistan and the Iraqis who were responsible. We acted like the poor being taught by the Taliban teachers perpetrated the crashes. They had nothing to do with the towers. Yet we persist with the myth of the uneducated ,poor Arabs are coming after us. If they do, it is because we keep bombing the shit out of their homelands. But put the blame for 911 in the hands of the Saudis where it belongs. They have financed the resistance for a long time now.
Would this be the same USPS that is not competent enough to put a key in my mailbox so I can actually open the package box?
Looks like we know who the target of the next attack will be.
This is nonsense. We acted as if the Taliban was giving aid, support and safe haven to Bin Laden and Al Quaeda, which they were. We told them to give them up or we’d attack, they didn’t give them up, we did attack them. Afganistan was serving as a base of operations for Al Quaeda, who were the ones that attacked us. It wasn’t exactly arcane reasoning going on.
I know I shouldn’t get into this, but what the heck do you think actually happened? The Afghan government gave AQ official security forces recognition, allowed them to use their air transport, gave them safe haven and support… but it was a ‘myth’, and somehow that amount to poor, uneducated Arabs ‘coming after’ us? Care to explain that logic?
You’re blowing smoke. Osama was effectively exiled in the mid 1990’s. While there’s certainly something to be said for the impact of Wahabism on the nature of the conflict, the Saudis were not officially supporting Al Quaeda at the time, although some of their rogue royals undoubtedly still were. Iran was supporting Al Quaeda. Afghanistan was supporting Al Quaeda. But all you really have on Saudi Arabia is unsanctioned financing and the nationality of the hijackers. One does not rationally blame a nation or its government for the actions of some of its citizens that it had no knowledge of or control over.
What, do you think we had some secret jones to attack Afghanistan and so we manufactured a reason, or something?
Incompetence…or all part of the conspiracy?!
This is an excellent post. I wish rational people would avoid debating CTers about the technical minutiae of the blast. You’re just ceding the argument to them. “If the explosions were caused by the planes you’d see the buildings sag at a 7 degree angle! But this grainy video clearly shows them sagging at an 11 degree angle! Answer THAT sheeple!” So you get in a complex argument about fields neither of you are experts in and you forget the most important thing: The controlled demolition theory doesn’t make a lick of sense, for the simple and obvious reasons Ibanez lists.
Won’t have no teeth, won’t have no eyes.
That’ll mess up perspectives.
Just know that the Government is capable of anything. Remember the Tuskegee Airmen!!!
No, man, we’re still O.K. with eyes and teeth in 2020. It’s not until 4545 that we’re scheduled to lose them.
I wonder how many times the stock footage of Arabs swinging through monkey bars and doing PT has been used. Apparently it still works on some people.
Saudi money has been flowing to AlQueada for a long time. I have read that some of it is reluctant and is coerced. Follow the money and you will get to S.A.
How does a peasant in Afghanistan, who is getting trained to fight, get to America? They don’t. The terrorists we get here are educated and well financed. The money is Saudi.
Who said anything about official support? Did I imply they Saudi government was funneling government treasury to Osama. Nope. But the wealthy Saudis have funneled billions into AlQueda.
Do you believe the poor Afghani peasants have been going abroad to commit terrorist acts? Blowing up Afghanistan will make us safer? How?
gonzo, you don’t think Afghans are Arabs, do you?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/us-saudis-still.html The taps to Saudi money have been acknowledged for a long time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html Another article on what is well known. The Saudis make Al Qeada possible.
Yes… which is what I said but dodges the issue that it’s not official and that the Afghan government was a sponsor of AQ while the Saudi government was not.
Yet again, the people who actually gave AQ a base of operations and were the Afghan government. I know I’m probably wasting my time here, but you still haven’t even attempted to provide a rationale as to why we invaded Afghanistan if you’re denying that we had a vested security interest in stopping states that official gave safe haven to terrorists. You keep repeating nonsense about poor Arabs while dodging the role of the government of Afghanistan. Why?
:rolleyes:
Yet again, what part of the rationale for war do you actually disagree with? Do not use the phrase" impoverished Arabs" or any permutation.
Here is some thermite burning though a car, melting the steel hood. Looks red-yellow to me.
I’ll be posting cites for every claim I’ve made in this thread.
Here’s one for Andrews airforce base, about 11 miles from the Pentagon. Removed from that site after 9/11. This is a web archive.
Here is a engineer talking about molten steel, as seen by eyewitnesses. This is just one of a series, start at number 4.
"Payne Stewart Article Now Difficult to Access
Before July 2003, this Dallas Morning News article could be downloaded for $9.80 through the Wall Street Journal news library. The new search engine installed on their website, however, now makes it very difficult to find archived articles. "
Boy, They really don’t want you to know, huh? 
The reddish color is not the molten metal, but cooling bits being explosively thrown off the hood. The actual molten metal has the white-with-pale-green color already described in this thread. Even the narrator (at 2:40–2:42) notes that the molten metal is white hot. If it was red, why did he not describe it as “molten red”?
I suspect that this is the sort of “evidence” you are going to produce from here on out: misinterpreting some information while simply denying the reality of other information.
Actually, here is an engineer, (in what discipline?), quoting extracts of various people claiming to have seen “molten” steel–but also describing it as “red hot.” In other words, people who are not trained in metallurgy are using a word–molten–to describe their impressions of things they saw, when what they saw was something different. It is interesting that nearly every quote mentions how other people saw the “flowing” metal. There are very few first person eyewitness claims, and those that exist are pretty vague.
If the “molten steel” actually existed, then there should have been large pools of unidentifiable clumps of metal dragged out of the wreckage. Since all the debris was removed by truck, it should have been easy to actually take a photograph of the solidified clumps of previously melted steel. There are no such photographs. (For that matter, for all the people who claim to have seen “molten steel” “flowing,” we do not have a single photograph of that phenomenon, either.)
There are many photos of red hot steel. (Some of them are mislableled as “molten.”) There is no question that a lot of metal was heated and deformed in the wreckage. The millions of tons of debris provided a suberb way to bank the fires to keep the heat in the debris for months.
Your engineer creates a false dichotomy that either the people claiming to have witnessed “molten steel” are lying or that some other sinister phenomenon was occurring. The simpler and more accurate explanation points to people, such as yourself, who really do not know what “molten” means, using hyperbole to express their surprise at the (still very considerable) heat they experienced. Following which, of course, people who do know what the word means using those casually expressed views as though they had been expressed by actual metallurgists and pretending that there is “evidence” of something that never actually happened.
So, there was no hasty disposal of the debris from the WTC complex, and all the relevant sections to any investigation were found, kept and examined thoroughly?