US fury over UN expert's 9/11 'cover-up' claims

[kugga]

UNITED NATIONS — The United States on Tuesday demanded the sacking of a UN human rights expert for "noxious" comments claiming there had been a US cover-up over the September 11 attacks.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned the comments by Richard Falk, UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, as "an affront" to the victims of the 2001 Al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington.
The US ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, called Falk's views "despicable and deeply offensive" and said she had registered a protest and called for his dismissal.
Falk wrote in his personal blog on January 11 that there are "awkward gaps and contradictions in the official explanations" given for the attacks when hijacked jets crashed into the World Trade Center towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.
He said there was "an apparent cover-up" by the US government over its knowledge of the attacks masterminded by Osama bin Laden.
Falk said mainstream US media had been "unwilling to acknowledge the well-evidenced doubts about the official version of the events: an Al-Qaeda operation with no foreknowledge by government officials."
The US ambassador said she was "appalled" and joined calls by other groups for his dismissal.
"Mr Falk endorses the slurs of conspiracy theorists who allege that the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were perpetrated and then covered up by the US government and media," she said in a statement.
"Mr Falk?s comments are despicable and deeply offensive, and I condemn them in the strongest terms. I have registered a strong protest with the UN on behalf of the United States."
"In my view, Mr Falk?s latest commentary is so noxious that it should finally be plain to all that he should no longer continue in his position on behalf of the UN," Rice said.
"The United States is deeply committed to the cause of human rights and believes that cause will be better advanced without Mr Falk and the distasteful sideshow he has chosen to create."
UN officials said that Falk is not appointed by Ban, but by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council. The council must decide Falk's future, they said.
Speaking in Geneva, the UN leader expressed shock over the comments in a speech to the UN Human Rights Council.
"I want to tell you clearly and directly. I condemn this sort of inflammatory rhetoric. It is preposterous -- an affront to the memory of the more than 3,000 people who died in that tragic attack," Ban said.
The US ambassador said the United States had already criticized what she called "Mr Falk?s one-sided and politicized approach to his work for the UN, including his failure to condemn deliberate human rights abuses by Hamas, but these blog comments are in another category altogether.
"I would note that US and many other diplomats walked out in protest in September 2010 when Iranian President Ahmadinejad made similarly slanderous remarks before the UN General Assembly."
The Iranian leader also appeared to cast doubt on the causes of the September 11 attacks in his speech to the General Assembly last year.

AFP: US fury over UN expert's 9/11 'cover-up' claims

 

[kugga]

Shhhhh..... no one should say any thing against this 9/11...

 

[Obambam]

I guess people should know better that buildings struck from the top will not result in the bottom collasping first and falling at free fall speed?
The heat melting the steel structure theory doesn't work and their fire services has proven it already. It just isn't possible. The top may tople over first, but the collapse from the bottom indicates that there were explosive charges at the base of those buildings.

 

[gambit]

I guess people should know better that buildings struck from the top will not result in the bottom collasping first and falling at free fall speed?
The heat melting the steel structure theory doesn't work and their fire services has proven it already. It just isn't possible. The top may tople over first, but the collapse from the bottom indicates that there were explosive charges at the base of those buildings.

- The collapse did not begin from the top. It began from the impact point.

- No one said anything about 'melting steel'.

 

[SQ8]

There was this article on how the towers were constructed.. specifically their superstructure ..i.e the outer shell being the actual weight support.
And there are more physics involved than just JENGA physics.

If you have ever played this game.. it would occur to you that sometimes the tower fall even if you only remove a brick from one of the top layers.. the movement of that brick and the loss of support in the section creates a cascade effect that ends up toppling the whole tower..
If so.. then the way it fell was only natural..

 

[ameer219]

There was this article on how the towers were constructed.. specifically their superstructure ..i.e the outer shell being the actual weight support.
And there are more physics involved than just JENGA physics.

If you have ever played this game.. it would occur to you that sometimes the tower fall even if you only remove a brick from one of the top layers.. the movement of that brick and the loss of support in the section creates a cascade effect that ends up toppling the whole tower..
If so.. then the way it fell was only natural..

With all Respect Sir,

The World Trade Centre building is more than just building blocks. It was a tube structure made of 47 steel columns.

Even if we go by the logic, that if "a few blocks" had came out, the building should have instantly collapsed, or at least a few seconds are collapsing to show that the structure is unable to take the impact. Both of those buildings hold on for almost an hour.

But the report concluded by NIST and Purdue Unviersity concluded that it was actually fire that caused the destruction of building. This may have been true on the first 2 building, as we are unaware of the impact of the velocity combined with its mass of the planes , that may have weakened the steel structures, but what about Marriott World Trade Center? It collapsed just because a few fire spread to it. I doubted that it collapse due to fire alone cause the head that has spread would be insufficient to produce that much intensity to cause melting of steel.

The unbelievable part is that the building of WTC fall at free fall speed. Why Free Fall Speed? When a building collapsed, there is tendency to be resistance from the floors below. Even if the pancake theory was applied, it should have resisted for at least 5 seconds more.

 

[A1Kaid]

There was this article on how the towers were constructed.. specifically their superstructure ..i.e the outer shell being the actual weight support.
And there are more physics involved than just JENGA physics.

If you have ever played this game.. it would occur to you that sometimes the tower fall even if you only remove a brick from one of the top layers.. the movement of that brick and the loss of support in the section creates a cascade effect that ends up toppling the whole tower..
If so.. then the way it fell was only natural..

It fell "natural"...

I can't believe you actually used the "Jenga" game as an anecdote and in your post regarding the collapse of the WTC, the complexities are immense.

 

[Obambam]

- The collapse did not begin from the top. It began from the impact point.

I did not say it fell from the top. I said it should not start collapsing bottom first. Yes the impact point was on the upper halves of the buildings, not the lower.

- No one said anything about 'melting steel'.

No one here did other than I, but many did on other forums and on youtube. It was even mentioned publically when they were going on about 911.

There are science and physics laws that you cannot ignore. Buildings don't fall down at free fall speed like this if struck on the upper half of the building. It certainly wouldn't collapse in a straight line, instead, it would topple over from the point of impact where it's weakest.

 

[gambit]

I did not say it fell from the top. I said it should not start collapsing bottom first. Yes the impact point was on the upper halves of the buildings, not the lower.

Halves? Let us get some basic terminologies straight. Half means roughly equal portions which we know is not true. If the impact point serves as a divide, then we have 'upper' and 'lower' portions. These are not trivial words. When the collapse began, the combined weight of the upper portion naturally would damage and destroy the floor immediately below the impact point, which was what happened. So when you said this: ...start collapsing bottom first... Where in the 'bottom' are you talking about? From literally the first GROUND floor?

- No one said anything about 'melting steel'.

No one here did other than I, but many did on other forums and on youtube. It was even mentioned publically when they were going on about 911.

I do not care who said anything about 'melting' or 'molten' steel. I only care if WHAT or the CONTENTS are true and only loony conspiracy theory believers have been spewing out this 'melting' or 'molten' steel nonsense. Steel supporting structures does not have to melt in order for the entire structure undergoes a 'global' collapse. Weight bearing structures are under constant compressive load and they do not need to 'melt' or 'dissolve' to fail whatever it is that they support. For a steel column, it only need to be weakened or softened by heat before it will give to that compressive load. This fact has been known for since mankind began working with iron and other metals. That is why loony conspiracy theory believers constantly has to throw up this 'melting' or 'molten' steel nonsense so gullible people like you could swallow it.

There are science and physics laws that you cannot ignore. Buildings don't fall down at free fall speed like this if struck on the upper half of the building. It certainly wouldn't collapse in a straight line, instead, it would topple over from the point of impact where it's weakest.

The laws of physics? Funny why you should mention them. Here is an explanation as to that 'free fall' speed nonsense...

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

THE COLLAPSE

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

If you believe that a fire cannot collapse a building based upon the laws of physics, then I suggest you contact people who make a living fighting fires...

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, 2000.6 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.

This is a 6-story CONCRETE building. Concrete is often favored over steel for its resistive behavior in fire.

Structural Material Behavior in Fire: Concrete

Concrete has a low thermal conductivity (50 times lower than steel) and therefore heats up very slowly in a fire. It is the low thermal conductivity that provides good inherent fire resistance of concrete structures. The main concern of using HSC is its higher susceptibility to explosive spalling during a fire attack.

Steel is favored over concrete for its superior strength per volume capacity. It also mean the steel has to be protected somehow from a flame. So there are trade-offs between steel and concrete.

It is even more funny and odd that despite the years passed, NOT ONE major architectural/engineering/construction company in the world have stepped forward to take your side. Why not? Taller buildings than the WTC towers are in muslims countries. Are you telling me that the US government either bought or intimidated ALL of these people and companies worldwide?

 

[Developereo]

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, mumble mumble Holocaust mumble mumble 9/11 ...

 

[gambit]

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, mumble mumble Holocaust mumble mumble 9/11 ...

Correct...The loony 9/11 conspiracy believer crowd is slowly dying. No one take them seriously. Mumbling is all they can do.

 

[Obambam]

Halves? Let us get some basic terminologies straight. Half means roughly equal portions which we know is not true. If the impact point serves as a divide, then we have 'upper' and 'lower' portions. These are not trivial words.

No sh*t Einstein, lets not get too happy with being nitpicky on words. Upper Half or Upper portion serves the same meaning in this scenario, since the plane never struck the building dividing it into equal halves. Hence I said "struck on the upper half".

When the collapse began, the combined weight of the upper portion naturally would damage and destroy the floor immediately below the impact point, which was what happened.

Yes obviously the top being severed would give added weight to the parts below it. This however should have triggered a domino effect with windows popping out one floor after another as it decends downward, not falling in a straight line at free fall speed as previously discussed.

So when you said this: ...start collapsing bottom first... Where in the 'bottom' are you talking about? From literally the first GROUND floor?

Which part of "Bottom" do you not understand?

Steel supporting structures does not have to melt in order for the entire structure undergoes a 'global' collapse.

Yes any structure can collapse. Point is how and in what manner did the collapse occur?

If you believe that a fire cannot collapse a building based upon the laws of physics, then I suggest you contact people who make a living fighting fires...

Yes fire can result in a collapse, as I said several times already. Problem is how the collapse occurs.

This is a 6-story CONCRETE building. Concrete is often favored over steel for its resistive behavior in fire.

This is like comparing apples with oranges.

It is even more funny and odd that despite the years passed, NOT ONE major architectural/engineering/construction company in the world have stepped forward to take your side. Why not?

Why would companies from around the world wants to get themselves involved with an "American" issue? What benefits would they have? I am sure if the government is willing to pay them a handsome reward to come out and challenege them, then they would. I am sure you understand that companies work for money. What you, instead, need to talk about are organisations.

Are you telling me that the US government either bought or intimidated ALL of these people and companies worldwide?

I believe I have already answered your question. Please refer to above.

 

[gambit]

Why would companies from around the world wants to get themselves involved with an "American" issue? What benefits would they have? I am sure if the government is willing to pay them a handsome reward to come out and challenege them, then they would. I am sure you understand that companies work for money. What you, instead, need to talk about are organisations

We can now conclude this discussion as gone to the absurd because you are saying that it is financially possible to pay off every major architectural/engineering/construction firms in the world. Paid so much money that it will make them disregard their professional ethics. And that paid so much that not even the oil rich Arabs could match when their religion is implicated.

 

[Obambam]

We can now conclude this discussion as gone to the absurd because you are saying that it is financially possible to pay off every major architectural/engineering/construction firms in the world. Paid so much money that it will make them disregard their professional ethics. And that paid so much that not even the oil rich Arabs could match when their religion is implicated.

It was already absurd since your comparisons of upper/lower halves to upper/lower portions with equal amounts and then going on to comparing concrete with steel.

Well if there is legal money to be had then who cares? In the world of business, money is your friend. Yes there are always exceptions who are not money motivated, but those will not fall into the business related category.

 

[GOD OF WAR]

In one of the articles, I read about this 'pretext to go to war with Afghanistan' it was written that the base steel of these building on examination seemed to be cut on a slant angle which caused the whole building to come tumbling down like a controlled explosion. This article was also supported by real pictures of these steel bars. The engineers rationalize that it is a trademark signature of military grade explosives used to blow bridges etc. The explosives used, on ignition creates enough heat to cut through solid concreate and steel in minutes! The explosive placed by an experienced Combat Engineer will be placed such that it will cut these steel shafts in an angled degree, to facilitate the colapse of the structure in subject.

The accompanying pictures showed exactly that! The base steel shafts were cut neatly of at angles! As if it was sawed! THE FORBIDDEN TRUTH is a book which is a good read and relays what really happned in 9/11 and the real reason why the US wanted to go to war with Afghans.

American history is full of such false tragedies like Pearl Harbour and 9/11, and the silly Americans always buy the crap. They're just so content with their extra large hamburgers, fries and beer that they just don't want to think. the Zionists have done a good job at keeping the US public in the dark and feeding them a load of poop and all the while capitailizing on their slumber.