Iran's Ahmadinejad: Sept. 11 attacks a 'big lie'

[dejet]

A valuable contribution to this thread.

The arrow paradox foo. None of us have motion~ Its all a lie, if nothing moves how can 9/11 happen?

duh thats the real answer now.

[Xno Kappa]

Do people really not understand how a building could sustain the impact of an airplane only to collapse after the burning jet fuel weakens the structural steel or are you guys just trolling (poorly)?

Orly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower
No plane I give you that, but the shit burned for 20+ hours with oxygen rich fire as opposed to the black fumes spewing out WTC1 and 2. To underestimate the scientific controversy surrounding the official NIST report is foolish. Til this date, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence to suggest it was internal heat that collapsed the towers. The whole "Pancake Theory" crap the NIST put out is a joke.

[Cadsuane]

I forget how it started and too lazy to look but basically Cad brought up bourgeoisie arabs studying abroad who get 'corrupted' by the west and then feel the need to spew reactionary hate when they get back home. Firas responded with hatred toward the west was the wests fault and discussed how repressive middle eastern oil dictatorships are and blamed that on the west too and its pretty much digressed from there.

I'll play-by-play the important parts for you.

Firas: Expresses support for Ahmadinejad. Questions Sept 11 account. Undertones of holocaust denialism.

Cads: Alleges Firas is a bourgeois arab with tiresome and standard opinions. Mentions working with Libyans and living in Ottawa, a popular city for middle eastern immigrants in Canada.

Firas: Comeback about cool American kids.

Cads: Reminds Firas that Ottawa is the capital city of Canada.

Firas: Brushes off distinction as trivial. Asserts that all white people are the same.

...

Plow: Makes an assessment of Firas' perspective. Expresses that it's interesting because it's oblivious to PC, and also that he's just generally oblivious.

Cads: Replies that it's not that unusual. Outlines a stereotype for young, aflluent, well travelled middle eastern students in an attempt to explain earlier comment about bourgeois arab attitudes about the west. Implication that Firas' attitudes are underpinned by this sort of sentiment.

Firas: Disputes that the anecdote is representative. Mentions how students often don't come back home from their travels, abandoning family. Rhetorical question about which is better alternative to Cads.

Cads: Isn't really interested in that avenue of discussion, brushes past it with comment about draconian penalties for homosexuality in Saudi Arabia, argues that leaving the middle east is hardly a choice for some. Rerails to explain earlier anecdote, meant to illustrate middle eastern morals and western hedonism as largely cultural myths, followed by reiterated accusation of bigotry.

Firas: Makes indignant accusation of ignorance about the middle east. Points out that muslims have been demonized after 9-11. Questions validity of Cads' experiences with arabs, makes chest beating comment about how he should have been "honoured" to meet them.

Cads: Doesn't disagree with commentary on negative attitudes towards muslims, nevertheless thinks that better examples could have been used than the plight of throwback clergymen and the grooming protocols of professional soldeirs. Becomes frustrated; never claimed intimate knowledge of the middle east and doesn't see how not having it invalidates any point that's been made, feels that this post doesn't really address anything that's been said about the cultural divide between mid east and west. Reminder of the comment about Ottawa and the double standard it reveals. Brings up anecdote about arabs abusing drugs at university to refute notion that arab shit doesn't stink like everyone elses.

Firas: Replies with claims of American foreign policy undermining the sovereignty of middle eastern nations. Links to various articles.

Cads: Utterly confused at this point. Thinks that Firas' arguments seem more like checking off lines on a talking points list than a coherent debate. Doesn't necessarily disagree with notions of American imperialism and influence on the middle east, notes however that the BBC article on post WWI mid east history cited makes no mention of the United States at all. Also thinks earlier comments from other posters about middle easterners taking responsibility for their own domestic policies are valid as well and support the notion of an arab victim complex. Inquires if Firas is illiterate instead of writing down any of this due to disenchantment with the discussion and disinterest in getting into geopolitical issues.

(exchange of ad hominem, peanut gallery delivers a verdict, /thread)

[ZarakiKujata]

you forgot the lulz of Ottawa being in the US.

[Cadsuane]

You're right, I did. I'll edit it in.

[Klaatu]

http://img693.imageshack.us/img693/6...dsuperhero.jpg

[aru]

Orly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower
No plane I give you that, but the shit burned for 20+ hours with oxygen rich fire as opposed to the black fumes spewing out WTC1 and 2. To underestimate the scientific controversy surrounding the official NIST report is foolish. Til this date, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence to suggest it was internal heat that collapsed the towers. The whole "Pancake Theory" crap the NIST put out is a joke.

It was a very solid building, with a central core of reinforced concrete that resisted the high temperatures of the fire without collapsing.

Hmm, I think WTC had a central core like this building's. Yea, I remember now, IT GOT BLASTED THE FUCK OPEN BY A FUCKING AIRPLANE.

Go sit in a corner.

[archibaldcrane]

Orly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower
No plane I give you that, but the shit burned for 20+ hours with oxygen rich fire as opposed to the black fumes spewing out WTC1 and 2

The Windsor Tower fire wasn't buring jet fuel as a source. Oxygen rich or not, the fire at Windsor Tower wasn't burning at 1000+ degrees.

[Faris]

I'll play-by-play the important parts for you.

Firas: Expresses support for Ahmadinejad. Questions Sept 11 account. Undertones of holocaust denialism.

Cads: Alleges Firas is a bourgeois arab with tiresome and standard opinions. Mentions working with Libyans and living in Ottawa, a popular city for middle eastern immigrants in Canada.

Firas: Comeback about cool American kids.

Cads: Reminds Firas that Ottawa is the capital city of Canada.

Firas: Brushes off distinction as trivial. Asserts that all white people are the same.

...

Plow: Makes an assessment of Firas' perspective. Expresses that it's interesting because it's oblivious to PC, and also that he's just generally oblivious.

Cads: Replies that it's not that unusual. Outlines a stereotype for young, aflluent, well travelled middle eastern students in an attempt to explain earlier comment about bourgeois arab attitudes about the west. Implication that Firas' attitudes are underpinned by this sort of sentiment.

Firas: Disputes that the anecdote is representative. Mentions how students often don't come back home from their travels, abandoning family. Rhetorical question about which is better alternative to Cads.

Cads: Isn't really interested in that avenue of discussion, brushes past it with comment about draconian penalties for homosexuality in Saudi Arabia, argues that leaving the middle east is hardly a choice for some. Rerails to explain earlier anecdote, meant to illustrate middle eastern morals and western hedonism as largely cultural myths, followed by reiterated accusation of bigotry.

Firas: Makes indignant accusation of ignorance about the middle east. Points out that muslims have been demonized after 9-11. Questions validity of Cads' experiences with arabs, makes chest beating comment about how he should have been "honoured" to meet them.

Cads: Doesn't disagree with commentary on negative attitudes towards muslims, nevertheless thinks that better examples could have been used than the plight of throwback clergymen and the grooming protocols of professional soldeirs. Becomes frustrated; never claimed intimate knowledge of the middle east and doesn't see how not having it invalidates any point that's been made, feels that this post doesn't really address anything that's been said about the cultural divide between mid east and west. Reminder of the comment about Ottawa and the double standard it reveals. Brings up anecdote about arabs abusing drugs at university to refute notion that arab shit doesn't stink like everyone elses.

Firas: Replies with claims of American foreign policy undermining the sovereignty of middle eastern nations. Links to various articles.

Cads: Utterly confused at this point. Thinks that Firas' arguments seem more like checking off lines on a talking points list than a coherent debate. Doesn't necessarily disagree with notions of American imperialism and influence on the middle east, notes however that the BBC article on post WWI mid east history cited makes no mention of the United States at all. Also thinks earlier comments from other posters about middle easterners taking responsibility for their own domestic policies are valid as well and support the notion of an arab victim complex. Inquires if Firas is illiterate instead of writing down any of this due to disenchantment with the discussion and disinterest in getting into geopolitical issues.

(exchange of ad hominem, peanut gallery delivers a verdict, /thread)

you're a fucking retard

[Cadsuane]

you mad, etc. etc.

[Royal]

You are all retarded if you dont think 9/11 was caused by our government.

[Feedmenow]

Orly?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower
No plane I give you that, but the shit burned for 20+ hours with oxygen rich fire as opposed to the black fumes spewing out WTC1 and 2. To underestimate the scientific controversy surrounding the official NIST report is foolish. Til this date, there is absolutely no conclusive evidence to suggest it was internal heat that collapsed the towers. The whole "Pancake Theory" crap the NIST put out is a joke.

Looking at the fact sheet:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

Evidence that directly pokes holes in controlled demolition:

Spoiler: show

5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower? The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).
However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.
UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.
Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

[Xno Kappa]

Hmm, I think WTC had a central core like this building's. Yea, I remember now, IT GOT BLASTED THE FUCK OPEN BY A FUCKING AIRPLANE.

Go sit in a corner.

What the fuck are we, in 6th grade!?

Test models performed by physicists several times with temperatures hotter then what was proposed in the Twin Towers all resulted in no such collapse or weakening of steel. Frank De Martini himself stated the towers were built to withstand multiple jet-liner crashes. To assume the engineers didn't plan for planes to crash into the buildings with fuel is willfully being ignorant.

This isn't even bringing up the fact you have survivors in Tower 2 who were above the crash levels safely make it down through this supposed 1000+ temperature with various eye-witness accounts stating the floors below were in normal conditions. There has never been an instance, before or after 9/11, where steel framed towers collapsed due to fires.

I never stated the fall of the towers were due to controlled detonations or a secret guberment plot. My point is that the whole "Pancake Theory" is just as flawed.

[Feedmenow]

Test models performed by physicists several times with temperatures hotter then what was proposed in the Twin Towers all resulted in no such collapse or weakening of steel. Frank De Martini himself stated the towers were built to withstand multiple jet-liner crashes. To assume the engineers didn't plan for planes to crash into the buildings with fuel is willfully being ignorant.

Those testings were considering the aspects of a Boeing 707, the plane used in the crash was a Boeing 767, which is 20% larger.

As for survivors on the floors involved, there are 2-3 questions answered in that link as well.

I never stated the fall of the towers were due to controlled detonations or a secret guberment plot. My point is that the whole "Pancake Theory" is just as flawed.

Just making sure.

[Rhyis.]

the puny number of arabs that you had the honor to meet.

Canada, Ontario specifically, has a redonkulous amount of arabs over here. Can't throw a stone without hitting 20 shawarma shops.

[Yuri-G]

firas is just proof that the only people who will believe the shit this guy spews are the people who already believed the shit before he spewed it.

that or he's trolling.

or both. really, I think it's both.

[test123]

great, now explain building 7

[Melena]

which of these debates will be settled first? serious poll time.

1. Is Tupac really dead?

2. Is Elvis really dead?

3. Did the U.S. really woosh the entire world over 9/11?

4. Aliens at Area 51?

[Kuya]

I know that Elvis posts in this forum and that Tupac made that list a real long time ago.

[Ksandra]

which of these debates will be settled first? serious poll time.

1. Is Tupac really dead?

2. Is Elvis really dead?

3. Did the U.S. really woosh the entire world over 9/11?

4. Aliens at Area 51?

gonna go with elvis, because sooner or later he'll have to be 500 years old to still be alive.