I don't think you've done any research or investigating. You want the Government to broadcast to the public concrete plans or something?!? Good luck.Originally Posted by Crocodile
Confessions? People would be shot. I'm not saying exactly what happened or have an exact list but I don't know how you can say there's no 'evidence' at all. That boggles the mind. One would have to totally remove themselves from any significant info and many on here apparently do just that.
Here's the thing. Don't get me wrong - it's not like I blindly believe everything Bush administration said. (Iraq's WMDs are the best in that respect.) I suggest putting those 'proofs and sufficient evidence' to a real test. I dare you to take the US government to court with those and try to convince the judge that you case at least has a merit. That is going to be a historical "14Russian vs the US Government" case. If you do that, I'll go over those links to refresh my mind (since I was interested in that topic long ago and I think I found an answer for myself). Sounds fair?
You see, if you think you're the only one who takes that topic seriously, you would be wrong. Believe me, you have a good company of the retired professionals who are more than capable to conduct their private investigations. Also, the presently active FBI guys are not that all corrupt either and some of them even believe they serve the country and the people, could you imagine? And they are kind of used to risk their lives sometimes. So, if they would be able to get a real proof of who did that, they would take the initiative to track those guys down and 'kill them in their washrooms'. Be that John Ashcroft or whoever. Do you get my point? There's no proof.
Вы считаете, что провокации невозможны? Да ими полна история. Но для того чтобы предоставить неопровержимые доказательства нужен доступ к архивам, чего американское правительство предоставлять не будет.Here's the thing. Don't get me wrong - it's not like I blindly believe everything Bush administration said. (Iraq's WMDs are the best in that respect.) I suggest putting those 'proofs and sufficient evidence' to a real test. I dare you to take the US government to court with those and try to convince the judge that you case at least has a merit. That is going to be a historical "14Russian vs the US Government" case. If you do that, I'll go over those links to refresh my mind (since I was interested in that topic long ago and I think I found an answer for myself). Sounds fair?
Как можно не верить в то, что это могло сделать американское правительство, но верить в то, что это могли сделать несколько террористов, не связанных ни с какой спецслужбой мира?
Provocations are possible, but in order to claim that you need a proof. By the way, I would agree the 9/11 was a provocation. It provoked the US to start their 'clone wars'. (Something that made the US public debt to skyrocket since 2001!) However, what makes you think the only organization capable of provocation is the US Government?
What does it have to do with the archives? The buildings crashed just before our eyes! Besides, do you think people who really designed that would carefully keep the records?
I think I already said that a couple of times... I do not believe 9/11 was designed by Bin Laden, so please don't accuse me of something I had never said.
LOL! Excellent point, Marcus!
Croc, they (i.e. U.S. Government) would be in jail. I wouldn't have to do much initially until they were put behind bars. The U.S. Government has destroyed (and confiscated) evidence. You're obviously not a lawyer.
Again, you didn't read over the most recent links.
Don't forget, you're dealing with a simple-minded crocodile, and unfortunately I don't have a crystal ball.Would you be able to spell that out for me, please? In simple words, if possible?
Ok, so first you're saying there's plenty of evidence and now you're saying there's none? Is that another smile or is that another contradiction?The U.S. Government has destroyed (and confiscated) evidence. You're obviously not a lawyer.
Make the case and let the judge read it. That would let everybody know at least you believe those are giving some real evidence/proof. Until that happens, I reserve the right to think you either don't trust those 'proofs' yourself, or you are a coward who knows the truth and can prove it for the sake of the memory of the fallen, but you are just saving your butt.Again, you didn't read over the most recent links.
Why not? I seem to need some further details to follow the line of thought and accept the inference. Who else could commit such an egregious act of violence?
Hey, first, let's clear the US government from that wrongdoing, shall we?Why not? I seem to need some further details to follow the line of thought and accept the inference. Who else could commit such an egregious act of violence?
How can we start a controversy if we don't sort out the obvious? One topic at a time, please.
Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument that it was impossible for a small group of highly dedicated and fanatical Arabs to plan and successfully execute these attacks. But granting that...
На какой основе вы исключаете из подозрения российское руководство? Или китайское? Или европейский союз?
("On what basis are you excluding from suspicion the Russian government, or the Chinese, or the European Union?" -- please correct my Russian phrasing!)
Surely these other "suspects" have the sophistication to have planned the attacks -- even if one supposes that Arabs are too stupid and backwards to have come up with the oh-so-complicated strategy of smuggling small knives in their carry-on baggage, slitting the throats of a few stewardesses, and threatening to kill more in order to make the pilots open the cockpit door.
And surely there are theoretical motives for Russia, or China, or the EU to have planned the attacks (possibly to weaken the US's status as "the world's lone superpower", for example).
But while people like Marcus and 14Russian and other "9/11 Skeptics" present themselves as "open-minded" and accuse others of being dull, close-minded sheeple because they accept the official theory that "pissed-off Muslims did it", there is a rather strange limit to the self-proclaimed "open-mindedness" of 9/11 Skeptics!
Their imaginations will stretch exactly far enough to blame the U.S. government (or, possibly, the Israelis too), but not far enough to consider "ex-KGB agents under secret orders from Putin" among the potential suspects.
Why exactly is that?
P.S. To answer my own rhetorical question, I think that Lampada's "wishful thinking" remark is possibly correct: some people want it to be true that the Americans Are Guilty. They don't point fingers at China (for example) because "the Chinese did it" isn't emotionally satisfying to them.
Among the things that are возможно in America (and that were "even more возможно") prior to 9/11:
1. Domestic travel inside the US (including air travel) is quite easy and not very restricted
2. Living as a foreigner in the US (without being harassed by the police) is fairly easy -- evening living here with an expired visa was relatively easy, because of "separation of powers" between state-level police and the federal INS
3. Smuggling various items onto domestic flights -- again, fairly easy, because authorities were mainly worried about bombs and guns, and security for domestic flights was less strict than for international ones (prior to 9/11, I flew from NYC to Puerto Rico with a Swiss Army knife in my carry-on luggage... and some cocaine in my contact-lens case!)
4. Getting a visa to live temporarily in the US is relatively easy, even if you're a citizen of a nation that is on a "terrorist watch" list
For these reasons and others, I find it difficult to take seriously any claims that "a bunch of Arabs couldn't possibly have outwitted the police and government agencies of the world's most powerful country."
In fact, while the attack was in many ways "brilliantly planned," none of the details in the plan were that complicated, and no part of the plan required information that is only obtainable with a top-secret clearance. (For example, the weaknesses of airport security screening procedures were deducable by careful observation.)
Where did YOU get the idea that it's "laughable"? And where did you get the idea that the Official Explanation involves "melting metal"? I'm fairly sure that the Official Explanation says that structural steel weakens at temperatures significantly below the temperature of burning jet fuel (which is, in turn, significantly below steel's melting point).There are many theories for that but your conclusion that jet fuel took the towers down is laughable. Where did you get that idea? Are you an expert on melting metal and temperatures?
The claim that hot steel смягчается at temperatures far below the температура плавления should not exactly be controversial -- after all, it's why "Smith" (literally "кузнец") is one of the most common American surnames!
Говорит Бегемот: "Dear citizens of MR -- please correct my Russian mistakes!"
Very well stated, Throbert...
And Americans like cheap Chinese manufactured goods. That's why they don't want to blame the Chinese. No one even calls the Chinese "communists," although I know a lot of Americans who still call the Russians "commies." The Chinese commit horrendous human rights violations (suicide nets just to name one!) and for some reason the media is mostly silent about it, whereas the media never missed a chance to point out all the inhumanities of the co-called "evil empire" (Russia).
Americans like Wal*Mart and the convenience of cheap stuff. They don't really care where it comes from, or how badly people suffered to produce those goods. They don't think about the impact all of this is having on the US economy either! But I digress.
I think Americans are also (deep down) really scared of China. They prefer to think of the Russians as the "bad guys" because Russians were kind of endearing to us as "enemies" - maybe we sensed that they were really just a lot like us. I think those who still call Russia the "number one geopolitical foe" are just nostalgic, and hankering for the comfortable Cold War days, before the "War on Terror" and before the horror of 9/11.
As for all the conspiracy theories out there, I have studied enough of them to see that for the most part they just ask more questions than they really answer. Granted, I am not opposed to asking questions. I just hope we ask the right ones, and do not let our judgement get cloudy by too much "Ancient Aliens" thinking.
Вот потому, что вы говорите то, что не думаете, и думаете то, что не думаете, вот в клетках и сидите. И вообще, весь этот горький катаклизм, который я здесь наблюдаю, и Владимир Николаевич тоже…
I agree to that
POINTS FOR NEWBIES:
POINT #1: THE HEAT ALONE DID NOT DAMAGE THE BUILDING ENOUGH FOR IT TO FREEFALL
A random Youtube question:
'Not to change the subject too soon, but I still seek someone who can please explain to me how a 700 degree jet fuel fire can melt steel girders and frames that melt reluctantly at 2200+ degrees.'
QUESTION: Was the heat (i.e. fires) hot enough to melt steel to weaken frames etc. that ultimately causes the entire structure to buckle and free fall?
Take a look:
9-11 Review: Steel-Melting Fires
The simple facts of temperatures:
1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.
The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.
POINT #2: EVEN IF THE STEEL HEATED TO THE POINT THAT IT SUPPOSEDLY CAUSED OR CONTRIBUTED TO STRUCTURAL 'MODIFICATION' OR WARPED SURROUNDING STRUCTURE, IT WAS STILL NOT ENOUGH TO CAUSE THE BUILDING TO COLLAPSE
THE BUILDINGS ALL FELL THE SAME – BUILDING #7 HAD NO PLANE HIT IT. THEREFORE NO JET FUEL. Only fires. So, these fires burned at heat that caused the collapse?!?
9/11 Truth and the Collapse of Steel Framed Buildings | Global Research
“The 1992 edition of the National Fire Protection Association’s Fire Protection Handbook(1) says that structural steel does not even BEGIN to soften until it reaches a temperature of 425 degrees centigrade, or 837 degrees fahrenheit, and doesn’t loose half its strength until 650 degrees centigrade, or 1202 degrees fahrenheit. And W. I. Edgar and C. Musse in their 2001 article “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering and Speculation,” in the JOURNAL OF THE MINERALS, METALS AND MATERIALS SOCIETY (53/12:8-11) state that even with its strength halved, the steel in the World Trade Center could still support two or three times the stresses imposed by a 650 degrees centigrade or 1250 degrees fahrenheit fire.”
FEMA is the federal agency that later came up with a theory about thermal expansion to explain the collapse of World Trade Center 7. Yet in this FEMA statement quoted by Berhinig, we have an admission by FEMA that no such thermal expansion from fire had ever collapsed a steel framed building, even though steel framed buildings had been around for more than a hundred years, since the 1880′s.
In “Fire Inside: Strectural Design with Fire Safety in Mind,” by Carolyn Berry in the August 25, 2007 issue of SCIENCE NEWS, Allen Hay, chief fire safety officer of the New York City Fire Department said concerning World Trade Center 7: “We just expected it to burn out — we didn’t expect it to fall down.” “It’s the only building I know of in New York City to ever collapse (strictly) from fire.”
Upon reading the SCIENCE NEWS article, it turns out that the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) computer simulation, which purported to account for for the collapse of WTC 7, did not account for that building’s collapse. In the paragraph in the first column on page 124 of SCIENCE NEWS, Berry writes: “The NIST simulation, like all models of building failures to date, couldn’t follow the 9/11 collapses through to the end. No computer is yet powerful enough to follow the chaotic sequence of events that ensues when components break apart and a building falls, but this is where research is headed.”
Point WTC7-1 | Consensus 911
The Official Account
NIST originally suggested1 that WTC 7 was brought down by structural damage combined with a raging fire fed by diesel fuel. However, in its Final Report (of November 200, NIST declared that neither diesel fuel nor structural damage played a role in this building’s collapse, and that this building, which was not struck by a plane, was brought down by fire alone.
The Best Evidence
Before or after 9/11, no steel-frame high-rise building had ever collapsed due to fire.3 If fire were to cause such a building to collapse, the onset would be gradual, whereas the videos show that WTC 7, after being completely stable, suddenly came down in virtual free fall. This building’s straight-down, symmetrical collapse, with the roofline remaining essentially horizontal, shows that all 82 of WTC 7’s support columns had been eliminated by the time the top started down.
Lastly:
9/11 and the Evidence
If you don't read the above. We're done debating. It's not even a page and even the average high school student could read it and understand it.
As for China or Russia playing a part. Find me just one page or any article or any speculation whatsoever that either is involved. Anything. I am not sure where that is coming from. Possibly, you just don't want to investigate yourself so both of you are grasping for straws. Seems just as reasonable a conclusion as saying 'maybe one those countries did it.'
"Romney said 'Russia is still our enemy'' so maybe they did 9/11. "We don't like that China stocks all our Walmart crap so they could theoretically had a hand in 9/11' LOL But, do you try any research yourselves?!? NOPE!
Well, supposedly, wreckage from the WTC was shipped to China for recycling so I guess China is in on it, too, after all.
Geez, now the truth comes out after all this time and we finally have the answers.
It is taken from the article at the first post.In order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy.
You only have to know two things.
One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs.
It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation.
In my opinion, that is far too emotional a statement to being able to explain anything at all. Besides, following the same logic, the same world's only superpower was also unable to prevent a series of US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Were those bombings designed by the US government either?
Now, that is serious. That tells me the US government knows who did it but it does not want to officially recognize it. Because, if they had, the whole situation would probably spin out of control. But, again, that does not prove the US government was behind the design of 9/11.No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation.
Но атаковали-то Пентагон. Если б это было возможно, как же Америка смогла победить Советский Союз, который был гораздо сильнее, чем все Аль-Кайды вместе взятые.
I don't know about most of them. But the correct version that everything was done by American authorities explains everything.
Do you think I have a special anti-American bias?
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
23Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
