9/11 anniversary

[Fanoboy 4]

R.I.P

What a sad day :-(

[IL. 1,043]

Yeah, never forget that your own people did it and never forget that you always keep blaming it on muslims.

Not to forget that it was the reason why usa invaded iraq, and afghanistan, on it's war on terror to protect the people and establish democracy, seriously you beleive that? it's for oil.

& as far as i am consurned, we didnt kill million and millions in world wars and in the americas, not to mention vietnam, and many many others.

Peace.

[Fanoboy 4]

Yeah, never forget that your own people did it and never forget that you always keep blaming it on muslims.

Not to forget that it was the reason why usa invaded iraq, and afghanistan, on it's war on terror to protect the people and establish democracy, seriously you beleive that? it's for oil.

& as far as i am consurned, we didnt kill million and millions in world wars and in the americas, not to mention vietnam, and many many others.

Peace.

The only reason I'm posting this is because of the Holiday yesterday, and to be honest, I'm not going to argue about this
  Edited September 12, 2012 by Fanoboy  

[hym 358]

Yeah, never forget that your own people did it

Do you have conclusive proof of this?

and never forget that you always keep blaming it on muslims.

Actually, both Bush and Obama have been fairly consistent that they are not blaming Muslims for 9/11. Islam is no more responsible for 9/11 than Christianity is for the actions of Westboro Baptist Church.

Not to forget that it was the reason why usa invaded iraq, and afghanistan, on it's war on terror to protect the people and establish democracy, seriously you beleive that? it's for oil.

The "war for oil" claim is one that is easily made, but less easily substantiated. One can say that the US invaded Iraq for oil or because Bush had a vendetta against Hussein, but there is no definitive proof of either. As for Afghanistan, it becomes even harder to make those claims. Afghanistan has an insignificant supply of petroleum, and with the pace of fracking operations in the US, Afghanistan's natural gas supplies are also relatively insignificant. Afghanistan has significant supplies of rare earth materials, but you'll also notice that the US is not undertaking any significant efforts to develop those resources.

as far as i am consurned, we didnt kill million and millions in world wars and in the americas, not to mention vietnam, and many many others.

Can you provide some relevance here? The US didn't exactly start World War I or World War II.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

That day was a tragedy but time heals all wounds. We should not forget but the US needs to stop being so affected. The time for mourning is over, now is the time for looking into the future and get over it. We have bigger problems to deal with.

--Ocram

[SimHoTToDDy 2,939]

Yup. That response happened. I was hoping I was just imagining it.

It may be a complicated event, but lets not get into conspiracy theories, yes?

Anyway, I was happy I was able to see the towers in person long before anyone ever thought they'd be gone. For those of us that are old enough to remember, it was a surreal day.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Well, I actually had a meal in Windows on the World when the tower were still standing. We were in NYC on a system exploration with, of all people, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society whose HQ happens to be in Brooklyn. It was an interesting trip, and sadly I watched the coverage of the outrage.

I think it was more of a shock than the Kennedy assassination.

Recriminations aside, the al Quaeda agents who did the dirty deed were trained at flying schools in the states. This is pretty much proven. They also got into the states via legitimate routes via the INS on visas. While not exactly home-grown terrorists, they were quite a sleeper cell.

We were justifiably upset by all those ignoramus congressmen pointing fingers at us. They ought to look before they leap. If conclusions were a stick out the window, many of them would leap to their deaths.

[Alejandro24 575]

After 11 years many people expects that all the problems that started with this could stop. 11-S is an important event in the history of early XXI century because is the final closing to the socio-politic enviroment of the XX century. I mean, this is the main root of the actual situation in the world, from the financial crisis to the problems in Middle East and including many cultural factors.

Also, there are a intense belief of this atack were a False Flag attack. Forgett all the conspiracy theory, only watch a previous documental, from 90's or 80's for example, of the towers: its engineering could supported a crash of airplanes, actually they were designed for resist that. Engineering fail or another thing?

But we must still remember that there are more big disasters than this. However nobody deserves this kind of situations, doesn't matter if comes from terrorists or false flag attackers.

as far as i am consurned, we didnt kill million and millions in world wars and in the americas, not to mention vietnam, and many many others.

Can you provide some relevance here? The US didn't exactly start World War I or World War II.

A category in Wikipedia includes all the wars were the US was involved, includin Mexico-US War and another more recents like Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Or should I rememeber that in september 11 of 1973 the president of Chile, Salvador Allende, were overthrow in a Coup d' Etat orchestrated by US. Or maybe I in Argentina many years later, when another coup d' etat planned by US overthrowed Maria Estela Martinez de Peron and established a militar government commanded by Jorge Rafael Videla. Both intervetions broken the human rights and plunged both countries, and guess what?... both were commanded by US!

What about some cases like this in Guatemala and Ecuador, and another supported dictadures in Venezuela and Brasil. What sounds to you the Condor Plan in South America. And the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, in that school many militar forces of that dictadures learned how to torture and another related techniques used againts civilians and dissidents.

Or maybe I can remember you the incidents with United Friut Company in Colombia, a chapter included in the novel 100 Años de Soledad by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

And the list is very large.

I don't hate the US-American people, but they should more awake of what the government did, is doing and what they will do in the name of your country.

  Edited September 13, 2012 by Alejandro24  

[astronelson 339]

Forgett all the conspiracy theory, only watch a previous documental, from 90's or 80's for example, of the towers: its engineering could supported a crash of airplanes, actually they were designed for resist that. Engineering fail or another thing?

I'd say it was designed to survive hits by lighter aircraft, like the B-25 that crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945, or the C-45 that hit 40 Wall Street in 1946, or the Cirrus SR20 that hit the Belaire Apartments in 2006, to use examples fro New York City alone. Not a passenger aircraft that's quite a lot larger than those.

[Sgt Pepper 864]

was quite sure they'd survive such an impact. Of a 707 of course or planes similar.

EDIT: I was just throwing this out there. Not to stir an argument. The poor fellow that said that died during the attacks I believe.

  Edited September 13, 2012 by Sgt Pepper  

[Cobraroll 138]

^I've read a little into the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the "the towers were made to withstand aircraft impacts" argument pops up every now and then.

As a student of structural engineering, and a guy with an affection for skyscrapers, I had to look it up:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time"

To reiterate, the architects never thought an aircraft would hit the buildings in offense. The "disaster scenario" they had in mind, was that a 707 preparing for landing on a nearby airport could get lost in fog and hit one of the towers at relatively slow speeds. It's a quite different scenario when a 767 full of fuel hits the tower at cruise speed.

Below is a photo from the NIST report on the collapse of the towers. It is a slightly enhanced still from the A&E Documentary "Inside the Twin Towers". It shows that the fireproofing insulation was stripped off from the trusses in places, several years before the attacks.

More info: http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

[IL. 1,043]

Actually, both Bush and Obama have been fairly consistent that they are not blaming Muslims for 9/11. Islam is no more responsible for 9/11 than Christianity is for the actions of Westboro Baptist Church.

& the media?

Don't tell me it's completly independent, democracy, liberty, and etc ...

Not to forget that it was the reason why usa invaded iraq, and afghanistan, on it's war on terror to protect the people and establish democracy, seriously you beleive that? it's for oil.

The "war for oil" claim is one that is easily made, but less easily substantiated. One can say that the US invaded Iraq for oil or because Bush had a vendetta against Hussein, but there is no definitive proof of either. As for Afghanistan, it becomes even harder to make those claims. Afghanistan has an insignificant supply of petroleum, and with the pace of fracking operations in the US, Afghanistan's natural gas supplies are also relatively insignificant. Afghanistan has significant supplies of rare earth materials, but you'll also notice that the US is not undertaking any significant efforts to develop those resources.

Aside from the natural resources, have you ever thought that it is because of political reasons and military plans?

Like maybe, Russia, and later Iran?

Not to mention that if they didnt take Iraq down, it would've been Iran's ally, and perhaps being a second Iran? Not to mention Iran's ambitions to expand over Iraq? That would be more than ennuf to be a reason.

as far as i am consurned, we didnt kill million and millions in world wars and in the americas, not to mention vietnam, and many many others.

Can you provide some relevance here? The US didn't exactly start World War I or World War II.

Abou the west in general.

Yup. That response happened. I was hoping I was just imagining it.

It may be a complicated event, but lets not get into conspiracy theories, yes?

Anyway, I was happy I was able to see the towers in person long before anyone ever thought they'd be gone. For those of us that are old enough to remember, it was a surreal day.

Considering that muslims did it or Al-Qaeda is not a conspiracy theory? Or just because the media say so?

P.s.: Osama Ben Laden was an agent working for USA against Russia.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

All water under the bridge now. Memorials are fine, but national paralysis isn't a good idea at this juncture.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Not to mention that if they didnt take Iraq down, it would've been Iran's ally, and perhaps being a second Iran? Not to mention Iran's ambitions to expand over Iraq? That would be more than ennuf to be a reason.

Wait what? Iran and Iraq were mortal enemies as long as Saddam Hussein was in power. Before the first Gulf war the US even supported Saddam with weapons because he was fighting against Iran. But then he became a pain in America's ass when he attacked Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia and fired Squd missiles at Israel.

In any case, Saddam was a Sunni, and they hate Shia's and Iran is Shia, so yeah, as long as Saddam was there, Iraq and Iran would never be allies. But now that the US removed the Sunnis from power, and the Shia population can vote for their own leaders. Well, good chance Iran and Iraq become closer friends now.

[IL. 1,043]

Yeah, you said it yourself, Iraq was becoming an obstacle infront of USA project in middle-east, it was a military rising power.

& how do you know if Iran and Iraq couldn't be allies? Being sunni doesnt mean to hate shia -_-

& who are "they", you are speaking by the name of all muslims again?

Maybe I should start saying, Christians, instead of saying USA or what so ever.

[Alejandro24 575]

...

Maybe I should start saying, Christians, instead of saying USA or what so ever.

No, you should not. Didn't read my post above? At bottom we know that the religion is only a consequence, not the reason... money, power, oil, that things that move all the world.

[IL. 1,043]

...

Maybe I should start saying, Christians, instead of saying USA or what so ever.

No, you should not. Didn't read my post above? At bottom we know that the religion is only a consequence, not the reason... money, power, oil, that things that move all the world.

What I said was sacrasm.

[hym 358]

& the media?

Don't tell me it's completly independent, democracy, liberty, and etc ...

The media is not the American people, nor is it the voice of the American government. The media is the media and should be trusted at arms length, if best.

Aside from the natural resources, have you ever thought that it is because of political reasons and military plans?

Like maybe, Russia, and later Iran?

Doubtful. Afghanistan is a terrible location to launch an invasion force against another country, especially Russia. You'd suffer many, if not all of the same problems that plague current operations in the country. As for Iran, there is absolutely no need. The US Navy's Fifth Fleet has proven that the Iranian Navy is no match for it. Furthermore, the Sixth Fleet is easily moved from the Mediterranean, and the Pentagon has already explored using the two fleets together as a platform for invading Iran.

Not to mention that if they didnt take Iraq down, it would've been Iran's ally, and perhaps being a second Iran? Not to mention Iran's ambitions to expand over Iraq? That would be more than ennuf to be a reason.

As long as Saddam Hussein was in charge, that would never happen.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Yeah, you said it yourself, Iraq was becoming an obstacle infront of USA project in middle-east, it was a military rising power.

& how do you know if Iran and Iraq couldn't be allies? Being sunni doesnt mean to hate shia -_-

& who are "they", you are speaking by the name of all muslims again?

Maybe I should start saying, Christians, instead of saying USA or what so ever.

Read your history book more closely. Yes, Iraq was becoming a danger for the region, which is why Bush senior started the first Gulf War, where the Americans neutralized the Iraqi army. Ever since then, all Iraq could do was hold on to Iraq itself, but it knew full well that the US wouldnt tolerate another adventure against its allies, and it was to poor to continue the war with Iran.

And yes, being Sunni does actually mean that you cant stand Shia's and the other way around. Most of the violence after the fall of Saddam Hussein was between Sunnis and Shia's. And Iran was sending support to the Shia's in Iraq to get even with the Sunnis. Really, Iran and Iraq wont be friends as long as Iraq was run by Sunni's and was oppressing the Shia's.

And they referred to the Sunnis.

[IL. 1,043]

And yes, being Sunni does actually mean that you cant stand Shia's and the other way around. Most of the violence after the fall of Saddam Hussein was between Sunnis and Shia's. And Iran was sending support to the Shia's in Iraq to get even with the Sunnis. Really, Iran and Iraq wont be friends as long as Iraq was run by Sunni's and was oppressing the Shia's.

And they referred to the Sunnis.

The case of Iran and Iraq maybe you are wright about it.

But how do you know that being a sunni means being an ennemy to a shiia or the vise versa?

I'm muslim btw, and yes sunni, and i have no problem with anyone being shia, christian catholic or protestarian or whatever that is, or any other relegions sects.

But I do have a problem with fanatic and extreme sects whatever the relegion is, both from sunni and shia, and from any other relegion.

Peace.

[LexusInfernus 908]

And yes, being Sunni does actually mean that you cant stand Shia's and the other way around. Most of the violence after the fall of Saddam Hussein was between Sunnis and Shia's. And Iran was sending support to the Shia's in Iraq to get even with the Sunnis. Really, Iran and Iraq wont be friends as long as Iraq was run by Sunni's and was oppressing the Shia's.

And they referred to the Sunnis.

The case of Iran and Iraq maybe you are wright about it.

But how do you know that being a sunni means being an ennemy to a shiia or the vise versa?

I'm muslim btw, and yes sunni, and i have no problem with anyone being shia, christian catholic or protestarian or whatever that is, or any other relegions sects.

But I do have a problem with fanatic and extreme sects whatever the relegion is, both from sunni and shia, and from any other relegion.

Peace.

Hmm, well, you dont have to be an enemy. But over the course of history, Shia's and Sunnis have always been fighting over who are the true heirs of Mohammed or something. I guess its kinda like how Catholics and Protestants were at each others throat for centuries.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

We are wandering rather far afield in this discussion. Maybe you gents would like to start a thread on the schisms in Islam? There are certainly more than the Sunni and the Shi'a. Don't overlook the Sufis. They are very interesting, if small. And then there is the ruling Wahhabi dynasty in Arabia.

[thegaming 3]

Yeah, never forget that your own people did it and never forget that you always keep blaming it on muslims.

I'm thinking the same thing ... and look when the world trade center are falling ... Why it fall from the Top ? ???

That's just impossible a simple Plane Who crash in Can do that

And For the people who living in US : IT's your government who do that , not Bin Laden ...

Bye ..

[thegaming 3]

And if you always dont believe me , look that video : it's in French but you can use Google traduction or something like that

[IL. 1,043]

And yes, being Sunni does actually mean that you cant stand Shia's and the other way around. Most of the violence after the fall of Saddam Hussein was between Sunnis and Shia's. And Iran was sending support to the Shia's in Iraq to get even with the Sunnis. Really, Iran and Iraq wont be friends as long as Iraq was run by Sunni's and was oppressing the Shia's.

And they referred to the Sunnis.

The case of Iran and Iraq maybe you are wright about it.

But how do you know that being a sunni means being an ennemy to a shiia or the vise versa?

I'm muslim btw, and yes sunni, and i have no problem with anyone being shia, christian catholic or protestarian or whatever that is, or any other relegions sects.

But I do have a problem with fanatic and extreme sects whatever the relegion is, both from sunni and shia, and from any other relegion.

Peace.

Hmm, well, you dont have to be an enemy. But over the course of history, Shia's and Sunnis have always been fighting over who are the true heirs of Mohammed or something. I guess its kinda like how Catholics and Protestants were at each others throat for centuries.

Perhaps, but not all during the history, remember that Persian muslims and arab muslims had many scientific achievements together.

[IL. 1,043]

We are wandering rather far afield in this discussion. Maybe you gents would like to start a thread on the schisms in Islam? There are certainly more than the Sunni and the Shi'a. Don't overlook the Sufis. They are very interesting, if small. And then there is the ruling Wahhabi dynasty in Arabia.

Maybe.

Wahhabists are extreme and fanatics, they destroyed the prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) house, and built a public baths instead, not sure but that's what some people say.

Anyway, there are not really important schisms, the only differences between the sects, are just regional differences, like for example in a country their imams said once that people's pictures are forbidden, and in another country imams said once that people's pictures are not forbidden but sculptures and human statues are forbidden, and that can stay for centuries, and here you find, two different sects, but basicly they all share the same principles, the same Quran, and all the basic things, almost nothing important to fight about.

But due to fanatism, as you know, some relegious sects fight with each other, effcorse i am talking about some relegious's sects' fanatics.

Even between sunnis and shia (some sects of the shia are fanatic and hate sunnis, just like wahhabists are fanatics, and who ruling saudi arabia as far as I know, pertending to be applying Islam laws while they are not even close from that) there are not big differences, they both beleive in God/Allah(الله), they both read the same Quran, and they both beleive in the same prophets.

But shia say that Gabriel (I think you know who is Gabriel, an angel), sent the message of Islam to Muhammad(God/Allah bless him) instead of sending it to Ali(peace be upon him/عليه السلام), so the sunni and shia fighting is just silly and stupid, it's just another way to divise muslims even more and more (ever heard of the new middle-east plan?)

[Cobraroll 138]

Yeah, never forget that your own people did it and never forget that you always keep blaming it on muslims.

Why it fall from the Top ? ???

And For the people who living in US : IT's your government who do that , not Bin Laden ...

Bye ..

I see we have a small misunderstanding here. Civil engineer (student) to the rescue!

Basically, after being hit by a plane, the impact site will be the weakest point of the structure. This really is all you need to know to answer the question, but I'll elaborate a little:

Where the planes hit the towers, parts of the building's superstructure was ripped out. Columns were torn off, load-bearing beams cut, all sorts of nasty stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPAA1DLfre0

However, not that much mass was removed from the tower. Most of the plane and the structure it hit remained inside the building. And, of course, the floors above the impact zone were hardly damaged at all. So, the weight upon the impact zone was unchanged, but the number (and condition) of the elements supposed to bear them was drastically reduced.

Then, the fires set in.

Now, you might say: "Wait a second! Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel!", and that is true. However, the properties of steel change drastically with temperature. You don't have to liquify a metal to make it softer, often a temperature difference of a couple hundred degrees will radically change the way the material behaves. Look at any footage of a blacksmith, for instance. He heats his metal until it glows, then beats it into shape. He doesn't have to melt it entirely. Think of it like a candle left in a windowsill on a hot day, or eating a bar of chocolate you've had in a pocket for hours. It gets soft, really soft, but still far from liquid.

So in WTC, the fires began heating the steel beams of the superstructure. Each individual beam was put under more strain it was designed to bear, and the load-bearing properties of the materials were changing for the worse as the steel got hotter.

Also, I'd like to point out another phenomenom of materials: Thermal expansion. This can be observed in power lines if you live far inland where the difference between summer and winter temperature is big. On cold winter days, the cables are stretched like viola strings, while they sag a lot in summer. Basically, the material expands when heated. This can be quite a problem in structures like the WTC: If a piece of metal (a bolt, a beam, a column, whatever) isn't allowed to expand, internal strain will increase. The forces acting in the material increase even though the load on it stays the same. That means it will fail quicker even if the load is unchanged.

Finally, we got to a point where the floor trusses' sag got fatal. The floor caved in, pulling elements of the wall with them inwards. Here is a picture from the initiation of the collapse:

Then the tower came down. The columns in the impact zone couldn't bear the suddenly increased load applied to them as the load-bearing elements of the outer wall failed. Those columns collapsed too, under the extreme pressure.

"OK", you might say. "So a couple of floors collapsed. So what? Below the impact zone, there was no fire. The colums were entirely fine down there!"

Actually, they were. Apart from some minor damage, the structure was in prime condition just a couple of floors below the impact zone. It could easily have bore the weight of the floors above it, just as it had did since 1973. However, for all those years, the floors above had been standing still. Now they came rushing down.

Think of a hammer and a nail. Have you ever tried resting the hammer on the nail, trying to press it into the wood by the force of your hand alone? If not, good luck trying. However, if you swing the hammer, the nail is slammed into the wood. The mass of the hammer (and your hand) is unchanged, but we've got some inertia. Now think of the hammer as a several thousand ton heavy piece of office building, and the nail as a structure that was only designed to carry static load. The floors above the impact zone fell a few metres and hit the structure like a massive sledgehammer, effortlessly slamming columns apart and bending beams without slowing down. The next floor collapsed instantly. This was repeated for every single floor as the building fell. Floor upon floor fell in, and the load-bearing outer walls rained down like a macabre banana peel around the falling core, causing massive damage to nearby buildings.

The top section of the tower, above the impact zone, was still in good condition as it fell down. Scorched by smoke, but largely intact. Then it hit the pile of rubble. There was too much smoke on Ground Zero to see, but here is a video of a car falling to give an impression of what happened to it:

Fully feasible according to basic structural science.

And For the people who living in US : IT's your government who do that , not Bin Laden ...

The government, huh? As in, the invisible hand of the people in power?

Just think about it for a second: How many people would you need to fake this? How likely is that every single one of them keeps their mouth shut afterwards? How come they leave no trace? Why haven't civil engineers around the world come to a different conclusion than the NIST report?

There are many versions of the "It was the government" conspiracy theory, ranging from "foreknowledge" to "explosives", so I won't go deeper into it without knowing what your stance is. Not all the theories are worth a long rant.

[IL. 1,043]

Alright the civil engenering student saved the day

Thanks for the explenation, that convinced me why the tower didnt fall on one of the sides.

But I still think that it wasn't an independant plan or event.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Just shows, actually, that innovative architecture simply can't withstand nefarious humans. What one fool can build, another can destroy. Humans are very good at tearing things down and destroying the world. Usually for the most trivial of excuses.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Dick Cheney planted bombs in the towers and Bush personally pushed the button to detonate them. The CIA steals my blood at night.

No, but seriously it was an inside job and a big tragedy. It is clear there were bombs in the buildings and those who can't see that are naive or ignorant. The victims will not rest in peace until the real culprits are brought to justice, and that will unfortunately be never.

  Edited September 14, 2012 by MilitantRadical