U.N. delegates walk out / 911 to investigated - Ahmedinejad

[CAPTAIN AMERICA]

I expect if a sufficent number of terrorist could board an aircraft today they could do the same as was done on 911. That was the reason a number of Pakistan military was questioned a few days ago boarding a plane in the USA. There is not enough response time in the NY area to prevent a plane from ramming targets in DC or NY. Islamic Militants can disrupt, but in the long run they cant win. They dont have a alternative military, educational, or economic policy that is viable. I expect the conflict we are involved in now will last for centuries. The few drones you see now will in 20 years number in the thousands. People like Ahmedinejad, counties like Iran will continue to support terrorism because that allows them to extend their influence with out risk of military defeat.

 

[Irani]

I encourage you to watch this video:

Revealing, shocking video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in background, Google removes clip .
An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. (as you are looking at the video..Building 7 is on the right side of her head.)
Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.
To be clear, the Salomon Brothers Building is just a different name for Building 7 or WTC 7. Skip forward to around the 14:30 minute mark.


Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.

The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?

 

[gambit]

No hyperbole.
We have already discussed this and you keep running away when you can't dispute the facts (Iraq embargo, etc.). American action in the Middle East has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people.

Absolutely hyperbolic. Facts are not truths. Facts can be misused to hide truths and the truth is that for every American foreign policy action in the ME, there are contestant and consensual actions by regional leaders and it is the muslims like yourself who consistently ran away from acknowledging the effects of those actions. Attributing near omnipotent powers to American foreign policies is an effective self deluding and shifting of responsibilities away from the muslims themselves.

Spare me the violins. We all know, and you yourself have stated, that the US is not dependent on Arab oil.

The US may not be as dependent on ME oil as Europe or Asia are, but the issue here is that the ME controls a near monopoly on oil sources and prices. If the muslims are as much victims of Western 'imperialism' as you would like people to believe, the ME would have shared Germany's and Japan's fates. So spare me the screeching victim violins.

The US learned a thing or two about public relations after the carpet bombing of Dresden and the two nukes on Japan. The new modus operandi, learned from the Israelis, is to target just enough people to instill terror, but not enough that it can't be written off as collateral damage.

Spare me your crocodile tears for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. For what they did, the consensus was that their nations and countries should suffer some measures of what they meted out to their neighbors. If anyone learned anything from the Israelis, it is YOUR leaders who effectively used terror tactics in YOUR peoples to keep themselves in power.

You know you sound like a broken record when you prop up this irrelevant canard every time you lose an argument.

We moved on to superior storage medium but the one with the borked up record here is YOU who cannot deny the truth that live among the muslims -- that more muslims died at the hands of fellow muslims than from the US military.

Ah yes, our resident Muslim expert speaks again...

No claim of 'expert' needed to see how popular Osama bin Laden and Ahmedinijad are among the muslims.

Leaders of states do not threaten other states as to their existence, even in allegories. Ahmedinijad is bound to a state. Osama bin Laden is not. Ahmedinijad can threaten Israel because Israel cannot militarily respond to Iran the same way the US can. He has much to lose -- Iran -- should the target of his threat -- US -- take him seriously and militarily respond. Osama bin Laden has nothing to lose because his moral support is spread out among the muslims in many states. His 'military' is amorphous. Ahmedinijad can coerce any Iranian male into the official Iranian military. While Osama bin Laden cannot coerce, the moral support he enjoys among the muslims can persuade any muslim male into his army. The fact that any muslim can label himself an al-Qaeda associate, regardless of his competency, psychological or otherwise, is testament to this moral persuasion.

Again...The question is if a '9/11' occurred in Tel Aviv, would all these conspiracy theories came to be? No...They would not. After any Hezbollah rocket salvo or Hamas suicide bombing, we do not see muslim groups in a chorus calling out these are Zionists 'false flags' operations, do we?

Once again, you ascribe all sorts of bloodthirsty motivations to 'muslims of the world'. Your megalomonia and pathological Islamophobia is getting tiresome.

And you have no problems ascribing all sorts of those same bloodthirsty motivations, or worse, to the US in particular and the West in general. What was it you said about 'wanton slaughter'?

Erm, it's not just some Muslims. There are people all around the world, including within the US of A, who don't buy the official spin on 9/11.

Just because they do not believe it does not mean they are correct. Funny how people trotted out 'architects' and 'pilots' loony conspiracy theories believers groups to support their own belief in the same, but conveniently ignore the far greater peers of these professionals who support the 'official spin' about 9/11. If popular belief supposed to trump technical information, then how was I able to debunked so many previously held (mis)conceptions about military aviation?

The Muslims did the legwork and OBL probably still believes he was running the show. But the whole operation was facilitated by someone on the inside. Civilian airliners piloted by third-rate student pilots don't just saunter around in the most heavily guarded airspace on the planet. The store of federal documents at WTC-7 and the Pentagon were the real targets of 9/11. WTC 1-2 was a planned distraction.

How is it the most heavily guarded? By what mechanisms and by whom? This has been debunked so often that by now it is only willful self delusions that can explain the persistent resurrection of this argument.

Scared? No.

Saddened both by the fact that the US would sacrifice 3000 of their own citizens, and the ensuing wars that have killed so many innocent people.

Oh yes...The muslims are scared. Afghanistan was swiftly defeated by an angry US. Iraq came later. Regardless of the 'WMD' issue, the fact remains that a muslim state, one that is feared by the muslims themselves, was so decisively defeated and its political leadership publicly humiliated, scared you. Exaggerations such as how the American airspace is 'the most heavily guarded' are necessary to try to distance the muslims from 9/11. The Pope actually has tighter security than how the FAA, not NORAD, exercise authority and control over US airspace, and one Pope got shot. We have an airline pilot in this forum who dispute this nonsense but do YOU believe him? Of course not. You cannot afford to believe him. Your fear demand that you disregard any valid dispute to these loony arguments.

 

[gambit]

I encourage you to watch this video:

Dailymotion - BBC-BUSTED-WTC7-911 Detailed Version - a News & Politics video

Revealing, shocking video shows reporter talking about collapse with WTC 7 still standing in background, Google removes clip .
An astounding video uncovered from the archives today shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head. (as you are looking at the video..Building 7 is on the right side of her head.)
Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.
To be clear, the Salomon Brothers Building is just a different name for Building 7 or WTC 7. Skip forward to around the 14:30 minute mark.


Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.

The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent?

Buddy...When I read in the beginning about how no steel structures have collapsed due to fire and later on that bin Laden was 'funded' by the US, the first proved to be technically false and the second denied by bin Laden himself to Robert Fisk, I know that this supposedly 'shocking' video is nothing more than a rehash of debunked crap. You brought on the proverbial 'old news'.

 

[illuzioN]

Its very hard to have a civil conversation with Ahmadinejad and his followers in regards to the nukes if they keep bringing up the 9/11 issue which just makes us more and more upset ( like if IRAN wants to be attacked )

9/11 has nothing to do with this... the fact of a matter is that IRAN must and WILL NOT have a nuke as it poses a major threat in the region.

We would be more then happy to help IRAN get its Nuclear Energy, but in a peaceful and meaningful way.. and IRAN is not allowing us to work with them as they keep bringing up crazy claims.

If Iran does not do what we request, they will be attacked.

We are not in war vs Muslims, or Arabs.... we are in war with these Terrorist, and Axis of Evil Regimes

Its ok if many people in the region hates us... but you people must understand the big picture here

 

[Developereo]

Only after it was obvious that yes indeed, they were being used as weapons, were the fighters scrambled.

I find it hard to believe that the US was waiting for a precedent before instituting policies to guard the seat of all three branches of government, plus the military.

The 9/11 USAF Stand Down

This page from the Andrews AFB web site (removed 9/12) shows the base had F-16 fighter jets which could have intercepted Flight 77.
Instead, F-16s were scrambled from Langley AFB which is 120 miles south of the Pentagon at 9:30 a.m.

At first, the planes were directed toward New York at top speed, and probably reached 600 m.p.h. within two minutes, General Haugen said [obviously they were on a go-slow]. Then, flying in formation, they were vectored toward the west and given a new flight target: Reagan National Airport. [New York Times]

Keep in mind that WTC-1 had already been hit almost half an hour earlier, so this rogue plane heading towards DC was already suspect. And there is the convenient coincidence that the attacks just happened to occur while NORAD was in the middle of an 'hijacking wargames'.

Facts are not truths.

All righty then...

Facts can be misused to hide truths and the truth is that for every American foreign policy action in the ME, there are contestant and consensual actions by regional leaders and it is the muslims like yourself who consistently ran away from acknowledging the effects of those actions.

Actually, it is facts-averse people like yourself who run off when the going gets tough. Here's a link to our earlier discussion about the US-led sanctions on Iraq.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...zero-mosque-wins-approval-29.html#post1074696

Shortage of medicines was only one factor for the deaths. Many deaths were caused by malnutrition, disease, etc. caused by shortage of clean water and general disrepair of infrastruture due to lack of spare parts. Chlorine, used in water purification, was banned under the sanctions.

The US may not be as dependent on ME oil as Europe or Asia are, but the issue here is that the ME controls a near monopoly on oil sources and prices.

No, the issue is that you claimed the US and West are 'at the mercy of' Muslim oil. I proved you wrong, and now you are trying to weasel out of it. As usual.

Spare me your crocodile tears for Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. For what they did, the consensus was that their nations and countries should suffer some measures of what they meted out to their neighbors.

No crocodile tears needed to decry the deaths of hundreds of thousand of ordinary civilians. However, it is good to see your true colors justifying the cold-blooded mass murder of these civilians by labelling them as 'Nazis' and 'Imperial Japanese'.

[...] YOUR [...] YOUR [...] YOU

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by just writing "I know you are, but what am I?"

Pathetic. Really.

No claim of 'expert' needed to see how popular Osama bin Laden and Ahmedinijad are among the muslims.
[...]
The fact that any muslim can label himself an al-Qaeda associate, regardless of his competency, psychological or otherwise, is testament to this moral persuasion.

Leaving aside your disjointed rant, the fact that any Muslim can join AlQaeda is no different than the fact that any American can join a militia. It's called freedom of choice and it lets people do stupid things.

Again...The question is if a '9/11' occurred in Tel Aviv, would all these conspiracy theories came to be? No...They would not. After any Hezbollah rocket salvo or Hamas suicide bombing, we do not see muslim groups in a chorus calling out these are Zionists 'false flags' operations, do we?

Why would they? Most people are not obsessed with Israel the way you seem to be. Lots of things happen around the world and people pay attention to what matters to them.

And you have no problems ascribing all sorts of those same bloodthirsty motivations, or worse, to the US in particular and the West in general. What was it you said about 'wanton slaughter'?

Madeleine Albright, referring to the deaths of Iraql children due to US-led sanctions, "it was worth it".

Just because they do not believe it does not mean they are correct. Funny how people trotted out 'architects' and 'pilots' loony conspiracy theories believers groups to support their own belief in the same, but conveniently ignore the far greater peers of these professionals who support the 'official spin' about 9/11. If popular belief supposed to trump technical information, then how was I able to debunked so many previously held (mis)conceptions about military aviation?

Once again you try to squirm out of your own hole. You claimed that Muslims believed in 9/11 conspiracies, as if it was something unique to Muslims. The point, which you are desperately trying to weasel out of, is that plenty of people around the world don't buy the official spin. It's not just Muslims.

Oh yes...The muslims are scared. Afghanistan was swiftly defeated by an angry US. Iraq came later. Regardless of the 'WMD' issue, the fact remains that a muslim state, one that is feared by the muslims themselves, was so decisively defeated and its political leadership publicly humiliated, scared you.

You really need some professional help. This level of megalomania is really sad to witness.

how the FAA, not NORAD, exercise authority and control over US airspace

OMG, you really don't know, do you?
What do you suppose happens when the FAA identifies a rogue aircraft as a potential threat to designated assets? Do you think the FAA maintains its own fleet of F-16 interceptors for these emergencies?

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

When/If Iran obtains nuclear weapons it becomes everyone's problem.

I don't know why people have a problem with Iran possessing nukes,I don't think Ahmadinejad is dumb enough to distribute them to terrorist groups.

Of course,it"ll end Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle-east.

Danger being a possibility of a nuclear arms race in the Middle-east especially starting with KSA

 

[Irani]

Buddy...When I read in the beginning about how no steel structures have collapsed due to fire and later on that bin Laden was 'funded' by the US, the first proved to be technically false and the second denied by bin Laden himself to Robert Fisk, I know that this supposedly 'shocking' video is nothing more than a rehash of debunked crap. You brought on the proverbial 'old news'.

okay fellow, Give me a credible reason and I will accept your claim about steel structures, for example one another building collapsed. Maybe your right I'm not an expert but without proof I can't accept it.
Himas numerously have denied that Iran fund it. Do you accept it? apparently ones denial is not enough.
About the video, explain me how the BBC reported the demolition of Salomon Brothers Building 20 minutes before it's actual happening?
If you provide me with reasonable answers for this questions and tones of other queries about 9/11 everyone will accept them. Therefor your country shouldn't be afraid of an independent international investigation about 9/11 as Ahmadinejad demanded. If you consider U S's hands clear, why should you be worry? He never said which of the theories is true, he just asked for an investigation for finding the real responsible for incident.

 

[illuzioN]

He never said which of the theories is true, he just asked for an investigation for finding the real responsible for incident.

Those responsible to 9/11 are being dealt with already...

How dare Ahmedinejad came to New York where 911 occured a few blocks away making such hateful statements... HOW DARE HIM!

 

[Irani]

Those responsible to 9/11 are being dealt with already...

How dare Ahmedinejad came to New York where 911 occured a few blocks away making such hateful statements... HOW DARE HIM!

Actually, he didn't said anything hateful, he just asked for investigation and it's not hateful! Seams to me your county got something to hide so they try to kill the messenger!
You are not in the position to ask him how dare. In fact, we should ask how dare you started war in our region. How dare you killed near 2 million people. How dare you threatening us with unconventional weapons! How dare you pointing finger toward Muslims without proof?....
And funny, In your county they burn Holly Quran and It considered as freedom of speech nevertheless that it hurts 1.5 milliard Muslims around the world, The cartoonist are rewarded in west because of freedom of speech,and so on but when it comes to asking questions about a suspicious incident you all of a sudden figure it out hateful! Where is freedom of speech now? LOOKS LIKE AHMADINEJAD IS RIGHT, 9/11 IS GOING TO BECAME ANOTHER UNTOUCHABLE HISTORY EVENT, EXACTLY THE SAME AS HOLOCAUST!
I think the best way to respect 9/11's victims is to find out the truth and react humanly in a responsible way.

 

[gambit]

okay fellow, Give me a credible reason and I will accept your claim about steel structures, for example one another building collapsed. Maybe your right I'm not an expert but without proof I can't accept it.
Himas numerously have denied that Iran fund it. Do you accept it? apparently ones denial is not enough.

I have heard numerous times many versions of your demand for logical arguments and that how you would concede. That has yet to happen. People like you are not interested in facts, logic, and finally the truth. You already made up your mind and this is nothing more than a pretense at portraying yourself as a 'logical' person. Nevertheless, for every one of you, there are hundreds more who are genuinely interested in a logical argument, particularly about this 'steel structures' subject, and so for their sakes, I will refute you, not that I expect you to change your mind.

Anyway...The argument generally goest: '...no modern steel structure had ever collapse due to fire prior to 9/11.'

The unspoken argument mean: No steel structure CAN collapse due to fire.

The fallacy is obvious for many reasons, one being the exclusion of probability, meaning that not even an accidental damage to any supporting member, or members, from fire, of this steel structure can initiate a global failure. So if it is impossible for a steel structure to fail due to fire, it could only mean a physical assault on a supporting member, or members, of this steel structure, that could initiate a global failure. But...We had such a physical assault on multiple supporting members. You do believe that an airliner had a collision course with a tower and traveled deep into the tower, right?

Again...The unspoken argument goest: No steel structure CAN collapse due to fire.

Really?

The loony conspiracy theories believers trotted out the Winsor Tower fire in Spain where that building did not collapse. But their deception was exposed in that the Windsor was of a hybrid construction...

Case Studies: Historical Fires: Windsor Tower Fire

Construction Type:

Reinforced concrete core with waffle slabs supported by internal RC columns and steel beams, with perimeter steel columns which were unprotected above the 17th Floor level at the time of the fire.

So we have steel columns above the 17th level. What happened to them?

It was believed that the multiple floor fire, along with the simultaneous buckling of the unprotected steel perimeter columns at several floors, triggered the collapse of the floor slabs above the 17th floor.

The steel members collapsed. So for a hybrid construction where concrete was the main material, of course the Windsor did not collapsed, but the steel members did failed. So for an all steel structure like the skeletons of the WTC towers, fire alone can indeed collapse such a structure given enough time and if the fire is not challenged, like how the fires of the Windsor and the WTC towers were not challenged.

Even concrete, which has superior fire resistant property, is not immuned from fire induced collapse...

Fire Protection Engineering Archives - Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire

A fire-initiated full collapse of a textile factory occurred in Alexandria, Egypt, on July 19, 2000. This 6-story building was built of reinforced concrete, and its fire started at about 9 a.m. in the storage room at the ground floor. Fire extinguishers were nonfunctional, and the fire spread quickly before the firefighters could arrive. An electrical short-circuit accelerated the fire spread. At about 6 p.m., nine hours after the start of the fire, when the blaze seemingly was under control and subsiding, the building suddenly collapsed, killing 27 people. Figure 3 shows a photograph of this collapse.

Here is how concrete is superior to steel in a fire...

The fire resistance of concrete | Concrete Construction | Find Articles at BNET

Concrete offers great fire resistance to structures. It is reasonably physically stable to about a thousand degrees Fahrenheit, and even above that temperature it usually does not fail dramatically. Concrete's thermal properties protect reinforcing steel and prestressing steel, and it does not fall off structural steel members like some fireproofing coatings do.

A steel structure, under stress like how a building would create that constant gravity load, would have buckled before its temperature reached 1000 F...

Fire resistance of steel framed buildings - Fire damage assessment of hot rolled structural steel

Strength loss for steel is generally accepted to begin at about 300ºC and increases rapidly after 400ºC, by 550ºC steel retains about 60% of its room temperature yield strength.

One thousand F equal to about 540 C. But here we have a 6-story tall CONCRETE building failed due to fire and yet the WTC loony conspiracy theory believers are telling us that no steel structure CAN collapse due to fire...!!!

I do not expect you to change your mind after the logical explanation presented above. I doubt that you have the technical education and intelligence to understand it.

About the video, explain me how the BBC reported the demolition of Salomon Brothers Building 20 minutes before it's actual happening?
If you provide me with reasonable answers for this questions and tones of other queries about 9/11 everyone will accept them.

That is a laugh. There are no shortage of sources that absolutely debunked those 'tones of other queries'. What you brought on is nothing new. What you did was simply took on one side that conformed to your preconceived notions and bring them on as if it is new and shocking. Not. You do not have the intellectual honesty, as in objectivity, to sit down and do an honest assessment of both sides.

Therefor your country shouldn't be afraid of an independent international investigation about 9/11 as Ahmadinejad demanded. If you consider U S's hands clear, why should you be worry? He never said which of the theories is true, he just asked for an investigation for finding the real responsible for incident.

Really? Has there been an international investigation on the death of Neda Agha-Soltan when Iran said a CIA agent shot her? What is Iran afraid of? But if you argue that her death was an internal affair, then why is the US obligated to Iran's or anyone's demand for an 'international' investigation? But...What is preventing Iran from reconstructing the event and present the technical findings to the world? Iran is filled with oil wealth, no?

 

[gambit]

I find it hard to believe that the US was waiting for a precedent before instituting policies to guard the seat of all three branches of government, plus the military.

So how many fighters are on full alert at all times guarding the Pakistani government? How about Australia? I find it hard to believe that neither governments would hesitate to institute protection measures after 9/11.

The argument and belief here is that Washington DC is 'the most heavily guarded airspace in the world'. If it is the 'most' then there should be others who are less guarded, correct? That mean there should be other capitals in the world that even though less armed because they are not as militarily advanced as US, they are armed nevertheless. The Soviet Union's Kremlin should be appropriately protected, and yet we had...

Mathias Rust - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathias Rust (born July 1968 in Wedel, Schleswig-Holstein, West Germany) is a German man known for his illegal landing near Red Square in Moscow in 1987. As an amateur aviator, he flew from Finland to Moscow, being tracked several times by Soviet air defence and interceptors. The Soviet fighters never received permission to shoot him down, and several times he was mistaken for a friendly aircraft. He landed on Vasilevski Spusk next to Red Square near the Kremlin in the capital of the USSR.

At the height of the Cold War, a small airplane from a hostile country got past the mighty Soviet air defense and landed practically in Red Square. But Washington DC, one of the world's major tourist destinations, its sky is supposed to be filled with armed fighters at all times.

Manned fighters are slow to respond. If Washington DC is supposed to be 'the most heavily guarded airspace in the world', then it stands to reason that we should have the quickest response mechanisms to protect the government: missiles. So how many missile batteries are in Islamabad?

Actually, it is facts-averse people like yourself who run off when the going gets tough. Here's a link to our earlier discussion about the US-led sanctions on Iraq.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...zero-mosque-wins-approval-29.html#post1074696

Shortage of medicines was only one factor for the deaths. Many deaths were caused by malnutrition, disease, etc. caused by shortage of clean water and general disrepair of infrastruture due to lack of spare parts. Chlorine, used in water purification, was banned under the sanctions.

I dismissed that argument because it ignored the Iraqi government's role in that tragedy. The Oil-For-Food program was supposed to alleviate much of those needs. Other restricted items can be negotiated. The one who is facts averse here is you for ignoring the fact that Saddam built palaces during the sanction years. Far worse atrocious than the sanction regime itself. This is not counting the back door deals that abused the OFF program.

No, the issue is that you claimed the US and West are 'at the mercy of' Muslim oil. I proved you wrong, and now you are trying to weasel out of it. As usual.

But we are. The US may be less dependent upon the ME than Europe and Asia but we are no less dependent upon oil than they. So the muslims have their own countries, have a near monopoly on oil, but...boo...hoo...hoo...they are such 'victims' of the West.

No crocodile tears needed to decry the deaths of hundreds of thousand of ordinary civilians. However, it is good to see your true colors justifying the cold-blooded mass murder of these civilians by labelling them as 'Nazis' and 'Imperial Japanese'.

Then I share the same platform with millions of Asians who believe the same as I do.

Leaving aside your disjointed rant, the fact that any Muslim can join AlQaeda is no different than the fact that any American can join a militia. It's called freedom of choice and it lets people do stupid things.

Joining one of the loony anti-government militia in the US is indeed a stupid thing. But how many of these loons committed terrorism outside US borders? How many chapters of the Michigan Militia are in Australia or Japan? But al-Qaeda is a global ideological franchise.

Why would they? Most people are not obsessed with Israel the way you seem to be. Lots of things happen around the world and people pay attention to what matters to them.

You muslims are obsessed with Israel far more than any other people on Earth. The avoidance of the question is telling: If a '9/11' occurred on Tel Aviv instead of NYC, would the muslims be so ready believe in any conspiracy theory? Of course not. YOU would probably be dancing in the street, build a shrine to Osama bin Laden, and burn an Israeli flag.

Madeleine Albright, referring to the deaths of Iraql children due to US-led sanctions, "it was worth it".

Here is what she said about it later...

Amazon.com: Madam Secretary: A Memoir (9780786868438): Madeleine Albright: Books

I must have been crazy; I should have answered the question by reframing it and pointing out the inherent flaws in the premise behind it. Saddam Hussein could have prevented any child from suffering simply by meeting his obligations.... As soon as I had spoken, I wished for the power to freeze time and take back those words. My reply had been a terrible mistake, hasty, clumsy and wrong. Nothing matters more than the lives of innocent people. I had fallen into the trap and said something I simply did not mean. That was no one’s fault but my own. (p. 275)

If you are willing to take what Albright said at face value, then you should have no problems admitting that Iran does want to wipe Israel off the map instead of all these convoluted arguments about interpretations of what Ahmadinejad said.

Once again you try to squirm out of your own hole. You claimed that Muslims believed in 9/11 conspiracies, as if it was something unique to Muslims. The point, which you are desperately trying to weasel out of, is that plenty of people around the world don't buy the official spin. It's not just Muslims.

Given how illogical YOU have been about 9/11, I see little reasons to believe otherwise. Other people may also believe in these loony conspiracy theories, but they have nothing to lose while the muslims have much, namely the association of Islam to terrorism.

OMG, you really don't know, do you?
What do you suppose happens when the FAA identifies a rogue aircraft as a potential threat to designated assets? Do you think the FAA maintains its own fleet of F-16 interceptors for these emergencies?

OMG indeed...!!! A 'rogue' aircraft is not necessarily a hostile one. In the US, general aviation has many deviations...For example...

Why do pilot deviations happen? | General Aviation News

Common errors seen in all of the pilot deviations include poor preflight planning or poor pilot performance once airborne.

Or how medical emergencies on commercial flights...

Critical Care | Full text | Surgical and medical emergencies on board European aircraft: a retrospective study of 10189 cases

Thirty-two European airlines were asked to provide anonymous data on medical flight reports of IMEs for the years 2002 to 2007. The total number of incidents was correlated to revenue passenger kilometers (rpk). Additionally, on-board births and deaths, flight diversions, flight routes (continental/intercontinental) and involvement of a physician or medical professional in providing therapy were analysed.

Even if we are not informed of the cause and nature of a deviation, it does not mean the default assumption that said deviation is of a hostile intent.

I know that you are comfortable with the dictatorial and paranoia nature of muslim governments but do not impute those traits to Western societies.

Security Control of Air Traffic and Air Navigation Aids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Plan for the Security Control of Air Traffic and Air Navigation Aids (SCATANA) is an emergency preparedness plan of the United States which prescribes the joint action to be taken by appropriate elements of the Department of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration, and the Federal Communications Commission in the interest of national security in order to effectively control air traffic and air navigation aids under emergency conditions.

Transcript: 9/11 Commission Hearings for June 17, 2004 (washingtonpost.com)

EBERHART: SCATANA is a procedure that, as you say, allows us to take control of the air space. It's a procedure that was designed, again, to counter the Soviet Union and their long-range bombers. It's a procedure that if I had tried, and as the people approached me with, "Declare SCATANA," the problem was that we could not control the air space that day with the radars we had and all the aircraft that were airborne, 4,000 to 5,000 airplanes airborne.

So if I suddenly, "We've got it, we will control the air space," we would have had worse problems than we had that morning, because I cannot provide traffic deconfliction like the FAA has.

What mine is designed to do is we see a bomber coming from a long range, we tell everybody to get the aircraft down safely, then nothing flies and we control the air space. We are prepared to do that. But we're not prepared suddenly to take control of the air space and say, "We have it," because now we're talking -- in terms of safety and security of air travel, we're talking about a bad situation getting worse.

The other thing -- and I have the authority to do that. But I have the authority to do it against an external threat.

The second thing that's very important to note, there are procedures in SCATANA that are designed -- designed -- to counter long-range bombers.

Our airline pilot member Chogy can debunk you further but it is clear enough for now that you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[CardSharp]

All of this started with Dylan Avery. He was a film student trying to make a movie just after 9/11 whose plot is based on a conspiracy that the US government brought down the towers. As he did more and more "research" (read pot and internet ****) he came believe what he himself wrote. All subsequent theories and pseudo evidence built on this core. As time went on it became more and more elaborate as people added on and took away from the version of events until it is as we see it today.

 

[CardSharp]

Actually, our airspace is not heavily guarded... It is rather lightly guarded.

The U.S. never got into SAMS nearly as much as the USSR, and the primary AD are what are called "alert barns", hangars with hot-cocked fighters. These are few and far between.

During the cold war, we relied more on the threat of massive retaliation rather than multi-layered airspace defense.

Besides, all that has little to do with 9/11. Before that date, there never was an airliner hijacked to be used as a giant cruise missile. It was always "take me somewhere" or "release our comrades from prison." Pre 9/11, the recommended response for hijacked air crew was always 100% cooperation; be passive. The notion of scrambling fighters and shooting down airliners wasn't imaginable in those first chaotic hours. Only after it was obvious that yes indeed, they were being used as weapons, were the fighters scrambled.

That's why I suspect there isn't likely to be another 9/11 style attack. No flight crew/passengers will act in the same docile and passive way again and the terrorists know it.

 

[Developereo]

So how many fighters are on full alert at all times guarding the Pakistani government? How about Australia? I find it hard to believe that neither governments would hesitate to institute protection measures after 9/11.

Pakistan and Australia are not the USA -- the sole hyperpower on the planet with a military might greater than most of the rest of the world combined.

there should be other capitals in the world that even though less armed because they are not as militarily advanced as US, they are armed nevertheless. The Soviet Union's Kremlin should be appropriately protected, and yet we had...

You are stating that a less heavily guarded region was also breached. And your point is...?

Manned fighters are slow to respond.

But manned fighters were dispatched. To the wrong destination.

I dismissed that argument because it ignored the Iraqi government's role in that tragedy. The Oil-For-Food program was supposed to alleviate much of those needs. Other restricted items can be negotiated. The one who is facts averse here is you for ignoring the fact that Saddam built palaces during the sanction years. Far worse atrocious than the sanction regime itself. This is not counting the back door deals that abused the OFF program.

No, you walked away from that argument because all the points you raise here were already dismissed in that thread. The fact is that the US-led sanctions banned chlorine, which is essential for water purification. They banned critical repair parts and the resulting disrepair devastated the water and food preparation facilities in Iraq. All these led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi childern.

So the muslims have their own countries, have a near monopoly on oil, but...boo...hoo...hoo...they are such 'victims' of the West.

Indeed. Almost all of the oil producing Muslim countries, except Malaysia, are run by sycophantic tyrants bent on appeasing the West and brutally suppressing their own people.

But al-Qaeda is a global ideological franchise.

So are the various neo-Nazi groups. And the growing number of Islamophobic groups. And these latter groups are just as bloodthirsty as AQ, except they advance their agenda through think tanks advising their respective governments.

You muslims

Oh, give it a rest...

The avoidance of the question is telling: If a '9/11' occurred on Tel Aviv instead of NYC, would the muslims be so ready believe in any conspiracy theory?

There is nothing to avoid. The most important question in any crime is the same one asked by Cicero in antiquity, cui bono? who benefits? 9/11 did not benefit AQ, the Taliban or any Muslims. It did benefit the Zionist and neocon agenda tremendously.

A similar event in Tel Aviv would not benefit any Muslim group, since the resulting worlwide sympathy for Israel would give it license to unleash even more brutality. Such an action would backfire.

Of course not. YOU would probably be dancing in the street, build a shrine to Osama bin Laden, and burn an Israeli flag.

Sigh.

Here is what she said about it later...

Amazon.com: Madam Secretary: A Memoir (9780786868438): Madeleine Albright: Books

I was in the US when she went on that damage control tour. Nobody, not even the sympathetic American media, believed her lame damage control spin.

Given how illogical YOU have been about 9/11,

Suspending critical judgement and common sense in a frenzy of faux patriotism is not logic, it is intellectual laziness.

association of Islam to terrorism.

That is your agenda -- to define terrorism selectively and to associate Islam to it. Even attacks on US soldiers are now considered terrorism. The word is so abused, it has lost its meaning.

OMG indeed...!!! A 'rogue' aircraft is not necessarily a hostile one.

A rogue aircraft following the same pattern as two rogue aircraft which already crashed into WTC 1-2 half an hour prior is certainly suspect.

The point is that no aircraft were sent in time to intercept the rogue aircraft heading towards DC.

During my student pilot days, I accidently wandered too close to (but not over) Miramar AFB near San Diego, and two military aircraft were vectored in less than ten minutes to escort me (and my harried flight instructor) away.

I know that you are comfortable with the dictatorial and paranoia nature of muslim governments

Yawn. This is getting tiresome.
Really.