By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: why can't china copy "accountability" from "the west"
i have been watching "seconds from disaster" all this week. and whether it's the us, french, dutch, boeing, or airbus.. when there is a disaster, they do a public and open investigation. they go in head long looking for design flaws , human error, poor govt policy or whatever. they communicate info to their competition notifying them of flaws they've found in a particular design. they even acknowledge conspiracy theories. countries seek help from former enemies when it could help in an investigation
china loves to copy from the west; wall street bull, building designs even some policies. why not copy accountability. these govts are stable because they acknowledge what went wrong in a disaster and how many people died.
-It's more a ineffective communist party thing. Russia has pollution problems and enormous industrial disasters. In fact, the worst pollution of all time isn't in Asia, but Chernobyl.
-The government has no incentive to punish those responsible because the governments are also the owners of these businesses.
crimochina:
the only country that lets secrecy worsen a disaster russia. kursk, chernobal and the other sub that blew up. the entire world learned not to use that particular torpedo chemical /fuel but the ruskies had to let a big embarrassment happen first.
mattsm84:
Nailed it. And I'd add that the west should take China, and Communism in general, as an object lesson in what happens when the people who hold capital are also the people in charge of regulation.
The National Institute of Science and Technology were paid 20,000,000 to explain why WTC1 and 2 dropped and they were unable to offer an explanation beyond the point of initial collapse. Hundreds of firemen and eye-witnesses claimed there were multiple explosion, and independent investigations of four samples from the wreckage show large traces of thermite, a highly combustible substance used in controlled demolitions, and yet NIST still refuse to test for such substances, even though such testing is standard procedure required of any forensics team in fire and explosion investigations by the NFPA 921 code, and even though the Federal Emergency Management Agency's own investigation revealed a phenomena never before observed in building fires: a eutectic reaction which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as possibly the biggest mystery surrounding the events of 9/11. When asked if they had checked for traces of explosives a spokesman for NIST said "We didn't, but there were no explosives used." When asked how they could know this if they didn't check, the same spokesman said, "Checking for something that isn't there is a waste of time and the tax-payer's money."
Not my idea of thorough mate, sorry.
crimochina:
funny when i watched the doc on why they dropped they answered it pretty clearly. maybe the ccp needs to brush up on their rhetoric.
the support beams were built into the exterior. the jet fueled fire quickly weakened the remaining support structures. they even proposed what could have been done differently.
like i said the ccp really needs to update their talking points
GuilinRaf:
My brother in law is a structural engineer. He explained to me how the towers fell, and they had nothing to do with "additional explosives" or any other conspiracy story.
As to his politics, he actually thinks Obama is too conservative.< Edit: I meant brother in law./p>
mattsm84:
Guys, don't take the bait on this one. I know its nuts, you know its nuts, everyone else knows its nuts, but mArtiAn really, really into this 9/11 truther thing. Worse still he's been chomping at the bit for months to tell us all what sheep we are and how he, and a few others know the real story. As frankly offensive as it may be, you kind of have to treat him like any other tin foil hate wearing loon on this one. Just nod your head, and say "well, that's very interesting. I'll keep that perspective in mind." Because try as you might, you can't fix stupid.
mArtiAn:
I don't claim to know why they fell but it seems reasonable to ask the question. Operation Northwood (Google it) was a proposal to commit acts of terrorism on US soil in order to gain public support for an invasion of Cuba. It was accepted by a committee of Kennedy's advisors but turned down by Kennedy himself. Why should it be considered unreasonable to suggest someone may have done something that that same person has admitted to considering in the past? And what about building 7? That wasn't hit by a plane. It barely had any fire in it. But just like the other two it fell, freefall, right into its own footprint. Steel framed buildings don't do that, they twist and bend or even topple, they don't telescope in on themselves, through the point of most resistance at freefall speeds. It takes demolition experts time to achieve such a thing, it doesn't 'just happen.' On that day it happened 3 times. Perfectly reasonable to question such an anomalous event.
mattsm84:
Well, that's a very interesting. I'll keep that perspective in mind.
mArtiAn:
You're clearly an intelligent and educated man Matt, you don't do your intelligence credit by jumping on that 'All conspiracy theorists are nuts' bandwagon. Remember Watergate? That was a conspiracy theory until the story blew. The events of 9/11 are the defining moments of this century so far, and there are many intelligent and influential people who have cast very strong doubts over them. Gore Vidal for example went on the record as saying that there was an obvious stand-down of the jet fighters on that morning. MIT professors have held seminars discussing the pyroclastic clouds created by the destruction of those buildings, something apparently unheard of outside a demolition scenario. Intelligence is about keeping an open mind and questioning literally everything. I don't mind being wrong if i'm proven wrong. All i'm saying is that when you look at the facts of the case, they point very strongly toward a false flag operation. What interests me is why that should be so hard to consider. An intelligent man like yourself should know that is not an uncommon event. Just Google 'Operation Himmler' (or it might be Goering) and you'll find the entire second world war was started under false pretences. Look into the Gulf of Tongkin and once again you find that the battle that lead to the Vietnam war was started under false pretences. Google 'Operation Northwood' to see what your own government was considering back in the 60s. Google Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission on the events leading up to the strike on the Pentagon and see what you make of it. Personally i'm surprised Cheney never faced charges of treason as a result of that testimony alone. Have a look at these things (if you dare) before you start throwing insults. All i'm doing is exercising my freedom to question those in power. History will show us that that is a healthy practice. A-tha-a-tha-a-tha-a-tha-a-tha-that's all folks.
mattsm84:
-Watergate was not a conspiracy theory before the story broke. Nobody was saying even after the election in 1972 that Nixon had had Liddy and a few other's break into the Watergate hotel and bug the DNC convention. The story broke only after Mark Felt, who was working with the FBI, informed two reporters that Nixon had done just that. So no, Watergate was never a conspiracy theory.
-The existence of false flag operations does not mean the 9/11 was one such operation. Further, this targeted American citizens, and government buildings. That the US government would target not only its own citizenry, but also itself is an extraordinary assertion, and extraordinary assertions require extraordinary proof.
You have not provided such proof. In fact studies conducted by the NIST, the Civil Engineering Department at MIT, and Asif Usmani of the University of Edinburgh have all been published stating that the planes and the fires they caused could have been enough to have brought down the towers and these finding have sustained academic scrutiny and peer review for over a decade now. All the other side has on this is a few nuts pushing a counter narrative. Why should I find that persuasive? How do you?
Finally, and most damningly for your position Osama Bin Laden took credit for the attacks, stating the following:
"[w]e calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on...Muhammad (Atta) from the Egyptian family (meaning the al-Qaeda Egyptian group), was in charge of the group...The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes."
Like I said, loony toons.
mArtiAn:
To be honest I know sod all about Watergate. I mean I literally don't know what it was about, I was just trying to make a point about 'conspiracy theories' and what an empty distinction the term is. As I understood it though the crime took place in 72 and Nixon didn't get nabbed till 74 and that over that two year period there were a certain amount of whispered musings on his possible involvement, etc, but it really is beside the point. I also agree with you that the US attacking its own citizens is an extraordinary accusation that demands extraordinary proof. Here is a section i've just pulled off Wikipedia detailing the plans made in 62 under the heading Operation Northwoods: Operation Northwoods was a series of false flag proposals that originated within the United States government in 1962, but were rejected by the Kennedy administration.[2] The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit perceived acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation. Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets. The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy.
In light of this revelation, I think it is unfair of you to continue throwing insults at me for questioning the events of 9/11. The very admission that the US government had already made plans of this very nature demands the closest scrutiny of 'any' acts of terrorism on American soil, whether the questioner is American or not. In fact a man called Ted Gunderson, who held the position of the Head of the FBI in Dallas, Memphis and LA, became a whistle blower after retiring and made the claim that most if not all acts of terrorism in America are perpetrated by the CIA.
I also think it is necessary to approach an understanding of those events in a scientific manner, and I have read two peer viewed papers which were published in scientific journals. Here is a link to, and an interesting point made in one such paper, entitled: Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tociej/articles/V002/35TOCIEJ.pdf
13. Total Collapse Explanation Lacking
NIST: “This letter is in response to your April 12, 2007 request for correction… we are unable to provide a full ex-planation of the total collapse” [25]. This admission by NIST after publishing some 10,000 pages on the collapse of the Towers shows admirable candor, yet may come as a bit of a shock to interested parties includ-
ing Congress, which commissioned NIST to find a full ex-planation.
We agree that NIST so far has not provided a full explanation for the total collapse. Indeed they take care to explain that their report stops short of the collapse, only taking the investigation up to the point where each Tower “was poised for collapse” [4].
Also i've seen the pictures of the guy who admitted to being behind the attacks and claiming to be old Binliner himself, and they're comical. I mean really, 'I' look about as much like him as that guy, about the only similarity was they both went to the same hairdresser and were ZZ Top lookalikes, you've got to do better than that. As for Muhammed Attah however the Times of India reported that he was sent 100,000 dollars from Pakistani Intelligence Agency (ISI) chief Mahmoud Ahmed, through Pakistani intelligence asset Omar Saeed Sheik. Sheik was later convicted of killing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating connections between ISI and Al Qaeda at the time. On the morning of 9/11 Mahmoud was in a meeting on Capitol Hill with CIA clandestine operations officials and US senators.
The truth is Matt, there is an absolute wealth of evidence to support the inside job theory; the ignored warnings from 12 countries / the obvious stand-down of the jet fighters / Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission which showed clear knowledge of the incoming attack on the Pentagon / the fact that the Pentagon attack happened in a part of the building where auditors and accountants were looking at records of spending to try to find the 2.8 trillion that Rumsfeld had reported missing the day before the event / the existence of molten metal in abundance for months after the event when the reported temperatures (1370 degrees F) were in no way adequate to melt steel (2750 degrees F) / the privatizing of the complex 6 weeks previous to the attacks / the put options placed on United and American Airlines stock / the pilot of the Pentagon plane being deemed unfit to fly a cesna / the power-outs and removal of bomb-sniffing dogs in the days before 9/11 / the collapse of WTC7, the first steel-framed building in history to collapse due to fire alone / the fact that the WTC7 collapse was reported on the news 20 minutes before it happened / WTC owner Larry Silverstein's admission that they decided to 'pull' the building, a term used in the demolition industry / the calls made to government officials warning them not to fly on that day / the fact that drills were underway at the very time of the attacks which simulated attacks of the same nature, causing mass panic and confusion as to what was real world and what was an exercise / the numerous reports from firemen and civilians of secondary explosions / camera footage of squibs exploding far below the impact wave / the very collapse of all three buildings themselves, occurring at free-fall speeds in strict violation of Newton's law of Conservation of Momentum / the highjacker's passport which survived the fireball to be found in the street below being used as evidence, even though the owner of the passport turned out to be alive and well / the claim that all four planes, their black boxes, titanium engines etc, were incinerated, but the passengers were indentifiable by their DNA / the destruction of the air traffic control tapes / the destruction of SEC files on the put options / FEMA's discovery of a eutectic reaction in the steel which caused intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese / the discovery of thermate in the building's remains, etc, etc, and there is sooo much more, it truly goes on and on and on, kind of like i'm doing.
Matt, you're right, i'm always keen to get on this subject because it disturbs me how quickly it got sweeped away when there is so much about it that remains unanswered. Personally I don't think people want to consider their own country could be capable of such a thing, but only a few years later, the 7/7 bombings in London occurred at the exact time and place as a drill was being conducted simulating that very same scenario, just as had happened on 9/11. Captain Eric H May, former military intelligence officer for the US army stated that, "The easiest way to carry out a false flag operation is to hold a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out." There is more than enough reason to question the events of that day. More than enough.
mattsm84:
No, when I say extraordinary proof, I mean a smoking gun. You haven't got that. That false flag operations have occurred in the past is not a smoking gun. You'd need some sort of internal memo or the like proving that this was the intention behind 9/11. That some people might wish that the NIST reports had gone a little bit further in explaining precisely what happened is not itself a smoking gun. By the way no scientific institution of this type would do that, rhetorically they are instructed to use absolutes only when they can provide absolute proof, and to remain silent when they can't. Since its likely impossible to do that with only the wreckage left over from the attack, focusing on whether or not it is theoretically possible for a commercial airliner would have brought down a building in the way that it did makes for a stronger paper in the end. That this is the narrative that several sources independent of each other have come up with within those strict guidelines speaks volumes as to that narrative's likelihood. All those things that you say are impossible, MIT and the NIST say are theoretically possible. And between the two of you, I'll go with MIT and the NIST, not only because they are in all likelihood the better educated engineers, but because if they were wrong, the academic community would be all over them like flies on shit. It would make and break the reputations of entire academic institutions. That that hasn't happened speaks volumes to the weakness of your counter narrative here. And a weak counter narrative is not a smoking gun. Also, whether or not you find the guy on that tape a convincing Bin Ladin is immaterial. Most people do. That includes those who supported him. To prove that is wasn't, you'd need to find who it really was. In the absence of that, logic dictates that we must accept that it was in fact the most likely candidate, OBL himself. That you don't think they look alike isn't a smoking gun.
The rest of what you wrote is nothing more than conjecture. This does not look like a mountain of evidence. It looks like the paranoid ramblings of lone nutbag.
mArtiAn:
I'd be happy to continue this discussion if not for the fact that you seem to be unable to do so without being abusive. Your staunchly patriotic insistence that without a signed confession there really is no case, only goes to show that you are quite right, you cannot fix stupid. You can however dress it up with a university education. Sorry but I think I owed you that one. All the best.
mattsm84:
Look man, as the one making the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. So far, everything you've given me is either dubious, especially the claims you make regarding the engineering as they don't come from any sort of authority on the subject, or circumstantial, specifically the idea that false flag operations have happen in the past so 9/11 must be a false flag as well. And that's when they aren't just willfully ignorant, like ignoring OBL's actual confession because you didn't think it looked like him. My position here isn't pro-USA, its pro-reasonable qualifications for truth. I'd even take it a step further, and say that the reason you find this so believable isn't because its such a well put together case-- and lets face facts on this one, it isn't. Rather you view the US and the US government as so incredibly suspect because they took your country into an unpopular war and you loath them for it. Not because the war itself was or wasn't justifiable, but because you think that in doing so, your leaders subverted your country to a foreign power completely, as though you were nothing more than the 51st state. You reason then that if they are capable of that, they are capable of anything. I can't blame you for it, but guess what; those feelings have lead you to adopt an indefensible position. And in advocating it, people actually think less of you, because its loony toons.
mArtiAn:
Matt, if it's such a ridiculous idea why are you wasting your time arguing about it? I mean, if I said that America was made of cheese, which I won't because you're clearly not ready for that truth, you wouldn't discuss it or argue it, you'd laugh and say cheerio. This of course gives you an 'out' right here and a way to end this discussion on a strong note, but the truth is I think you have a question in the back of your mind as well, because it's not just people like myself in our tin-foil hats who are making these accusations, (and i'm NOT making this one because false flag attacks have happened before, that would be silly), there are MIT professors, great literary figures like Gore Vidal, men like former head of the FBI Ted Gunderson, ex high-ranking military officials, three leading third party presidential candidates, a former high-ranking advisor to George Bush, the commander in chief of the Russian airforce, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, 100 luminaries who signed the 9/11 Truth statement and the presidents of Iran and Venezuala. That the only person who was granted coverage of his doubts was Charlie friggin' Sheen was appalling. Honestly though, i've had this discussion so many times before, I am beginning to get bored of it, and maybe you're right, maybe I am nuts. I'd surely be the last to know if I was, right? One has to question oneself because we all think we're right. But it never fails to amaze me that intelligent people like yourself with whom I have had this conversation cannot see the blatant flaws in the logic of the official story. That a group of poorly trained guys were able to sneak guns, gas, knives, gasmasks and the like on to no less than four planes without being caught, even though warnings about this oncoming attack were numerous and detailed, then after miraculously getting into the pilot seat of each plane managing to fly unmolested for about two hours through the greatest military machine of all time, hitting 75 percent of their targets and causing two skyscrapers that were built to withstand just such an event and deemed capable of withstanding multiple impacts, to collapse at the same speed (ten floors per second) that they would have collapsed at were the floors made entirely of rice paper instead of thousands of tonnes of steel and concrete, violating strict laws of Newtonian physics, not to mention the fact that a third building (building 7) was made to collapse, going down in history that day as the first steel framed building ever to collapse as a result of fire, even though there was barely enough of a fire in the building to make toast on, but still it dropped, and once again at free-fall speeds, something utterly absurd outside of a demolition scenario, and each collapse being accompanied by reports from the firemen of multiple explosions "like you hear when a building's being demolished" as one group of firemen reflected on camera. And the result of these collapses and the burning of jet fuel (basically kerosene) and the regular contents of office buildings (carpet, dry-wall, furniture, etc) was a mass of molten metal that the firemen on the scene described as running like a river in a foundry. NIST reported average temperatures on the day of 500 degrees farenheit, and metal melts at 2750 degrees, but still these pools of molten metal burned for about three months after the incident. Isn't an intelligent mind forced to consider these things? You say that the claims I made are either dubious or as in the case of the engineering, don't come from any authority on the subject. Please; any claim you find dubious, tell me, I will sift through the sources i've found it on and try to find the most reliable one I can for you. And the authority on the engineering that I quoted was NIST itself, from a peer viewed paper printed in the Bentham scientific journal. For me that is a satisfactory source. In fact i'm confident I can provide you with a satisfactory source to back any of the claims i've made, i'm only interested in such claims, I have no time for hearsay. The claim that Cheney was in full knowledge of the incoming attack on the Pentagon but gave no warning about it is one you can easily confirm in just two minutes. Just look up Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission on Youtube and you will see him make it in person. The transcript reads something like this: "A young officer kept coming into the room saying to Cheney "The plane is 50 miles out" and then "The plane is 40 miles out" at intervals untill he came in and said, "The plane is 10 miles out. Do the orders still stand?" at which point the vice-president whipped his head round and said "Have you heard anything to the contrary? Of course the orders still stand." Mineta was then asked by the head of the Commission if Cheney was talking about the plane that hit the Pentagon and he confirmed that he was. And yet i'm nuts because i'm able to look at this large pile of shit and say it stinks. You're nuts. No, even worse, you're not, you're willfully ignorant, and why, because you're afraid of being called a God-damned conspiracy nut. Jesus, what a joke.
mattsm84:
That's very interesting. I'll keep what you've said in mind.
GuilinRaf:
Osama Bin Laden openly took credit for 9/11.
Now, lets pretend for a moment that he did not, and as martian says, it was a "lookalike".
He then had a decade to proclaim his innocence, why didnt he?
Anyway, for Bush to have pulled off an operation like 9/11 and successfully blame the Taliban would have required the intellect of a genius. It is generally agreed however that when it comes to intellect, he is not quite the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. So, which one is it? Genius or Idiot? He cannot be both. There is simply no way an operation of this magnitude, which would involve hundreds of people (if not thousands) could be kept quiet for this long. Sooner or later, someone talks, a memo is found, etc.
mattsm84:
No, I read it. It's still bonkers. And I'm done talking to you about this. The engineers at the NIST, MIT, and the University of Edinburgh have forwarded a much more convincing case than you have. Beyond that you've ignoring that OSB and AQ have repeated taken responsibility for the attacks.
mArtiAn:
I don't believe Bush was in the know, and I also don't believe it took thousands of people. It is however believed that a man in a cave and some poorly trained radicals were able to engineer their way through the most advanced military machine in the world and hit 75% of their target. How much easier might it have been for a few people in a central position of control, who had an intricate knowledge of that machine to be able to control such a situation? The vast majority of those others involved were unwitting pawns with compartmented tasks, just doing as they were told. As for Bin Laden, he's probably dead. Only weeks after 9/11 he stood up in front of over 1000 people and denied any involvement in it. Only the day before he was reported to have been in a hospital in Dubai being watched over by the CIA. I mean, just look at the pictures, the guy they say was him in that video looks NOTHING like him. What a joke. And fuck WTC1 and 2, if one of you guys can explain what the hell happened with building 7 i'll shut up. The place was barely smoking. Shit, if buildings went down that easily firemen would be the best paid people in the world. Jeez, forget it, this is useless.
mattsm84:
So what you're saying that this was not a large scale operation, rather a plan carried out by a small group of individuals. A conspiracy if you will. And in the absence of any real proof, what you're pushing is only a theory. Why is it then that you seem to dislike being labeled a conspiracy theorist? Anyway if it'll make you shut up.
You've been misinformed over what happened with tower 7. You stated it fell at free fall speeds. It would have taken for a building of that height 4 seconds to collapse completely. Tower 7 took 5 and a half. It couldn't have been a free fall. Further, you stated that there was barely any fire in the building, yet the NIST report stated that the fires on floors 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 were out of control. This caused the steal support beams to expand, weakening the building's structural integrity.
mArtiAn:
I don't mind being called a conspiracy theorist at all, haha, though i'm not too fond of being called a nut. As for building 7, the fires in it were miniscule compared to the sort of fires such a building can withstand. Just take a look at the skyscraper that flamed for about 24 hours in Shanghai just a few years ago. Just look at any fire in a steel framed building, they 'never' cause collapse, it is 'unheard of', outside of that magical day of course when it miraculously happened three times. For a building to collapse into its own footprint as each of those did, it would need for all four corners to give perfectly at exactly the same time. Just look up steel framed building collapse online and you'll find pictures of buildings lying on their side in all sorts of angles. These are not made of playing cards, and WTC7 housed the mayors bunker, it was not structurally unsound.
This is a waste of time though Matt. Believe what you will. I respect you in your beliefs, even if you are incapable of understanding and respecting me in mine.
mattsm84:
Before we go on, I think that you need to see that you've already changed your story here. You've gone from saying there was barely any fire to agreeing that five floors were all but engulfed in flames, which is consistence with what was reported by the first responders, although I think they described it as "tremendous" and that it was "burning like crazy." If fact, if you look at the statements from the firemen on the scene, it becomes clear that they expected it to fall, and that they gave to order to pull out of the building before it did.
However it's important to remember that it wasn't just the fires. Its that they went unattended for so long while the first responders were busy with towers 1 and 2, that these floors were in the bottom third of the building so the weight that was baring down on it was considerable, that the building had suffered structural damage from debris from tower's 1 and 2, and the fires began almost instantly as a result of the attack rather than growing from relatively smaller fires. With all of this additional information its easy to see how when steal support beams heated up and expanded that the building would have fallen in exactly the way that it did. Which is more or less consistent with what the University of Edinburgh, MIT and the NIST have said.
You're right to point out that normally it doesn't happen like this, but what happened on 9/11 wasn't a normal set of circumstances.
mArtiAn:
I never changed my story at all, i've seen dozens of photos of building seven, before and during its collapse, and it is staggering that anyone can be so gullible as to believe that the candles-worth of flame burning inside that building could have bought it down. But don't ask me. Don't ask the history books. Ask the organizations like 'Firefighters For 9/11 Truth' or 'Architects and Engineers For 9/11 Truth'. Or don't. Matt, i'm bored with this conversation. It's not my job to convince you. Believe what you want to. I've gotta make dinner.
mattsm84:
And now we are back to a candles worth of flame. Five floors producing what the firemen on the scene called a "tremendous, tremendous" amount of fire is hardly negligible. Ignore it if you want, just like you seem to be more than willing to ignore OBL's actual confession, but don't be surprised if people start calling you stupid.
mArtiAn:
Sorry man, you've lost me, maybe I am stupid, I don't remember suggesting the WTC7 fires were anything more than insignificant. Surely you've looked up pics of the fire, there are plenty to find online. Plenty. They speak for themselves. And yeh, that guy was not OBL. I don't care how many people admire the king's new clothes, nor do I care how many of them call me stupid, because i'm looking at him with my own two eyes, and I can see his bollocks. Goodnight Matt.
mattsm84:
How can you be so willfully ignorant? Read the eye witness accounts from the first responders on the scene. The people there are pretty clear that those floors are on fire and that the building was about to collapse. http://www.wtc7.net/warnings.html
And yet you are married to this fantasy.
Or on OBL and AQ. They claimed responsibility repeatedly. Not just on one video tape, but in audio tape and in written statements, again repeatedly. Hell, when the president of Iran forwarded the same batshit insane argument that you're forwarding here, they went as far as to publish an open letter to him claiming responsibility again. How can you ignore all of this just so that you can hold on to your precious conspiracy theory? I mean, there is stupid, and then there is absolute blithering idiocy and you've managed to throw yourself behind it entirely.
mArtiAn:
Global Research Editor’s Note
We bring to the attention of our readers the following text of Osama bin Laden’s interview with Ummat, a Pakistani daily, published in Karachi on September 28, 2001. It was translated into English by the BBC World Monitoring Service and made public on September 29, 2001.
The authenticity of this interview, which is available in recognized electronic news archives, is confirmed.
Osama bin Laden categorically denies his involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
Bin Laden’s statements in this interview are markedly different from those made in the alleged Osama video tapes.
mArtiAn:
Matthew, i'm saying that I believe, I honestly truly believe, that the events of 9/11 were perpetrated by elements within the American government. Now you have seen the report confirming that the joint chiefs of staff had agreed upon such a course of action as this in the past, right? You have no doubts that such an agreement was made to behave in just such a horrendous way as this in the past. Right? So. Assuming they were to have gone ahead with this kind of false flag activity in the past, do you not think that falsifying firemen's reports and the like may well have been a necessary part of such an undertaking and something they'd taken fully into account. My advice is to look up actual pictures of building 7. Look with your own eyes. There's film of its collapse, there are pictures from all angles. If you can find even one that shows anything remotely resembling a major fire, I would love to see it. Love the big letters though Matt, you almost had me change my whole belief system with those big letters. Very impressive.
mattsm84:
Yes, immediately afterward OBL denied responsibility, however he and the organization he was the nominal head of claimed responsibility repeatedly in the decade between now and them
I looked at those pictures. I saw a huge hole, and smoke billowing out of the building. It certainly looks like there. On the firemen's statements, these people actually exist, and their statements were printed in the NY times. If ever I was misquoted in my national paper of record, I don't think I have a difficult time letting people know about it. So after talking with you about this I am convinced that this wasn't an inside job because the case for it is just so incredibly slapdash and shotty.
mArtiAn:
Fair enough. Can I go now? You are aware that Al Qaeda was formed by the CIA though, aren't you? And yeh, i've seen that pic, the one with the big hole. Pretty bad, no doubt about it. How it caused all four corners to fail simultaneously is certainly impressive. And the memo you mentioned earlier, the one that shows probable cause, maybe that could be the PNAC memorandum written up within the year previous to the 'attacks'. The Project for a New American Century was written by Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and it highlighted the important role Iraq and Afganistan play in the future of America's development. The chillingly fortuitous statement made in that memorandum was that 'the road to change will be a long one, minus some catalyzing and catastrophic even, like a new Pearl Harbour.' Within a year of this being written up Fox News reported that the events of 9/11 were viewed by those on Capitol Hill as 'another Pearl Harbour.' Hard to imigine they'd have gotten the support to invade those countries if 9/11 hadn't occured. Again, nobody can blame a person for asking such hard questions, especially after Operation Northwoods came so close to going into operation. Right, gotta give the kid a bath. Cheers.
mattsm84:
- Look man, if you look at that photo there is a fire going in that building. Especially if you include what the eye witnesses said.
- You're mistaken. Al Qeada was a product of the Soviet-Afghan war, and while its possible that the US might have provided them funding, and even that's debatable, the CIA most certainly did not found Al Qaeda any more than it founded the Mujahadeen.
-That memo proves they were willing to capitalize on what they saw as an opportunity, not that they created the opportunity. The difference is between motive, which this is, and proof, which this isn't.
mArtiAn:
Sure, many believe they merely capitalized on the events of 9/11, I however, on viewing the evidence, believe it to be more than that. Yes there is a fire in the picture of the big hole; buildings have been catching fire for a very long time, but steel-framed buildings have never achieved total collapse as a result of fire before or since that day. Even 1 and 2 were deemed stable by NIST after the impact of the planes, so they too are considered as having been brought down by fire. That's three buildings in one day that have achieved total and complete collapse as a result of fire. And none of them were suffering considerably from their individual fires. Even building 1 (may have been 2) had a fire chief reach the impact area and describe the scene as two fires that could be put out. The smoke from those buildings was black, indicative of an oxygen starved fire. Nothing about the collapse of any of those buildings makes sense. 1, 2 OR 7. Such fires have raged and such buildings have suffered bombings on numerous occasions. Anyway, we're going round in circles here. I do appreciate your slightly more civil approach to discussion now though Matt. As for proof, that may be in the thermate found in samples taken from the wreckage. Unfortunately, and dispite pleas from an enormous global community of people who want to know the truth, NIST continue to refuse to test for explosives, even though it is standard practise required of them by law and, assuming there is nothing to hide, would put a lot of people's doubts, including mine, to rest.
Also it was confirmed in Parliament by the British Foreign Minister, formerly the head of MI6, Robin Cook, that the CIA recruited and trained thousands of Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afgan war and gave them the name Al Qaeda.
Right after that they can copy "intellectual property laws"
Why can't China copy accoutability from the west? The west is a big place. If you are refirring to the US politicians there is very little accountability. They allow themselves to do insider trading. Conflict of interest is not in the American language. They do just about what they like. The worst thing that could possibly happen to them is they resign and keep the money they took in bribes from lobbyists. There is no accountability. Franck3
Amonk:
Politicians everywhere are corrupt, but to suggest that the extent of the problem in the US is anywhere close to that of China is quite an assertion. If you're referring to things like the military-industrial complex and dinner with donors then that's largely allowed because of the ignorance and complacency of voters rather than any secret dealings.
