9/11 was an outside job

[Abdul-Hadi]

Greetings and peace

I'm going off on a tangent off of a tangent here...

But we are already off topic, amirite? 

He3 is an excellent fuel for aneutronic fusion. It is non-radioactive, non-strategic (can't be used to make H-bombs), and can fuse with itself. Deutorium plus tritium fusion suffers from multiple problems, not the least of which is that only 50% of the reaction is desirable (and the reactions produce neutrons). In DT fusion, you have DD, TT, DT, and TD reactions. In He3 fusion you only have He3 plus He3 reactions. The moon is an excellent source for He3, but He3 is available in molar quantities on earth (it is the product of tritium decay)--enough for research uses but not enough for use as a long term fuel.

Personally, I believe that He3 fusion is the way-to-go for fusion. Of course, I also believe that the main power supply of the future will be geothermal power (gotten by means of nanomachines). Ask me about nanomachines, if you like (open invitation). I've got a few ideas...

<back on topic> (in the off topic forum!) 

I believe that Osama bin Laden was behind 9-11. Whether there was foreknowlege of 9-11 on the part of any US officials (a la Pearl Harbor), I don't know.

Excerpt from Rub?iy?t of Omar Khayy?m

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
  Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
  Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.



~Abdul-Hadi 

[Mushu]

I'm not sure.

There are a lot of respectable experts who are not convinced that fire caused those buildings to collapse.  There are pictures of the central columns very distinctly "cut" in diagonals which seems odd given the building supposedly collapsed from fire.  And for me, the fishiest thing is definitely Building 7.  Wow!  It just collapsed from a fire on one side?  And we've all seen that shot where you see the silhouette of the building disappear against the horizon the way a deliberate demolition would do it.  Very strange!

[Magnus]

I'm not sure.

There are a lot of respectable experts who are not convinced that fire caused those buildings to collapse.  There are pictures of the central columns very distinctly "cut" in diagonals which seems odd given the building supposedly collapsed from fire.  And for me, the fishiest thing is definitely Building 7.  Wow!  It just collapsed from a fire on one side?  And we've all seen that shot where you see the silhouette of the building disappear against the horizon the way a deliberate demolition would do it.  Very strange!

Salaam brother.

As for "respectable experts" holding certain opinions that is an appeal to authority and therefore a fallacious argument. I could argue there are more experts holding an opposing opinion, but that would be an appeal to majority and equally non-valid.
I think I have seen the photos you speak of. If I recall correctly there were indeed thick beams that had been cut. That's because the pictures were taken several days into the cleanup operation, and there were guys going around with oxy-acetylene torches cutting up steel beams in order to, you know, clean up.

I agree that the building 7 collapse appears a bit weird. It's worth keeping in mind though that there are few pictures and videos of damage and fires in that building - i think several sides of the building were entirely undocumented between the collapse of the towers and the collapse of wtc 7. There are also many eye witnesses, firefighters and others, who describe extensive fires engulfing the entire lower section of the building. Being a steel structure it would be subject to the same "spaghetti effect" that made the towers collapse, even though the fires never burned hot enough to actually melt the steel. While wtc 7 never got showered in burning jet fuel, there were emergency generators and their diesel fuel tanks in the basement, so a fire/debris induced collapse is plausible.

As I stated in the first post, pointing at weird details after the fact does not offer an alternative explanation for the entire chain of events. If there were explosives involved, who planted them, when, how and why? Who flew the planes? What happened to the passengers? You get where I'm going with this. Unless placed in a larger context, backed up by some solid evidence, these seemingly weird details don't really offer any alternative scenario to regard as more or less plausible than the official account.

[Prince]

I highly recommend you guyz to watch 911 documentaries and 7/7 such as ripple effect which I believe is on youtube. There's always two sides to every story and to believe in the 'official' version of 911 then you may as well believe in Santa Claus flying through the buildings because the government wouldn't do a cover up surely 

If you don't believe me read about Operation Northwoods - a false-flag operation plan that originated within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine 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, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. RING ANY BELLS 

PEACE

[Magnus]

salaam

There's always two sides to every story and to believe in the 'official' version of 911 then you may as well believe in Santa Claus flying through the buildings because the government wouldn't do a cover up surely 

so what do you think is the other side of this story?

the governments of this world do plenty of cover-ups to hide their dirty deeds, and I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed otherwise. What I wonder is what makes you believe any goventment, the U.S govt included, would actually be competent enough to pull off something as insanely complicated as that yet-to-be-articulated conspiratorial chain of events on 9/11 would necessarily need to be, leaving no evidence, no witnesses, no leaks...

Knife wielding suicide pilots just seem so much more plausible.

[Mushu]

Salaam brother.

Wsalam bro

As for "respectable experts" holding certain opinions that is an appeal to authority and therefore a fallacious argument.

Not really, as I wasn't claiming these respectable experts are infallible, which would be the fallacy you're referring to.  Pointing out that experts hold a particular view can give weight to an argument and is a completely acceptable form of informal logic i.e. the fact that respectable experts are not convinced by the official theory make it less easy to dismiss the whole "questioning" agenda as musings of conspiracy nuts.  However, like you said, using these experts as a form of proof is indeed a fallacy.

As I stated in the first post, pointing at weird details after the fact does not offer an alternative explanation for the entire chain of events.

Lol, actually this is an example of a fallacious argument, namely argument from incredulity.  Not being able to offer an alternative does not make the official explanation true.  However, highlighting flaws in an explanation is part of critical thinking.

If there were explosives involved, who planted them, when, how and why? Who flew the planes? What happened to the passengers? You get where I'm going with this. Unless placed in a larger context, backed up by some solid evidence, these seemingly weird details don't really offer any alternative scenario to regard as more or less plausible than the official account.

True, but there are other factors that need to be understood here.  Mainly, there is information asymmetry between people and their governments.  That's a fancy way of saying that big governments hold all the keys and have the means to keep facts away from the people.  Now that may sound like the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist, but in actual fact is very true and is how almost all governments operate.  There needs to be a significant level of confidentiality and secrecy for any administration to function effectively.  So what does that mean in terms of offering an alternative explanation?  It means the people do not have the means to offer one, all they can do is punch holes in the official one given to them by their government.

Besides, politicians are liars.   

[Rana]

Salaam Alen

What would be the reason for this act?

I can think of so many reasons for it.....

Remember cause and effect?

I do know about cause and effect but i'm not sure what you mean when you ask about it. I can see that the decision certain Muslims made to do this hideous thing would have had a ''cause''...but what do you mean?

What would those people who done it, gain?

Destruction. Making a point. Exerting power over America. Instilling fear. Killing Americans.

If they really hate USA, why attack only Twin Towers?

As someone else pointed out - they did attack other things. But further to that, how many things do you expect them to be able to attack? I mean it would have taken a lot of money, planning and time to do what they have.

[Rana]

Mainly, there is information asymmetry between people and their governments.  That's a fancy way of saying that big governments hold all the keys and have the means to keep facts away from the people. 

Not so much now though thanks to wikileaks 

[Duke]

Salaam Prince,

Come on, brother you gotta give us more than that. As Magnus stated earlier no one is saying the US government is above cover-ups but I don't see where you gave us any meat to chew on with that post. That Santa Clause statement was a bold one. You should back it up by telling us why it has any merit in regards to 9/11 not Cuba. State your arguments here. Don't make us go search for stuff.

[herbman]

No comment:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xf2b6m_temoignages-des-rescapes-du-wtc7-11_news#from=embed

Peace