9/11

I think the Israeli-palestinian issue is way too complex to be discussed on an internet forum, since there are so many aspects people are not taking into acount, and I am no expert.

I think that blaming one side for the whole problem is laughable. Britain started the conflict by promising the land (in thier control at the time), to the Jews. It was going slowly, but after the holocust, it was obvious that the Jews were in need of a home. If not in palestine, than where?

Alot of the people are saying that the arabs dont want co existance, or the Jews want the whole place for themselves. First handedly I can tell you that the majority of Israelis AND arabs want to live in peace, and really dont mind about the West Bank, as long as they feel safe when they walk down the street. There are many examples where Arabs and Israelis live in the same neighbourhod with great joy.

The problem is the two extremes of both sides, which is what is being heard on the news and ruining the whole peace. Neither sides can be justified, but neither can be blamed.

IMO

Tony:

I find it interesting (if not blatantly evasive) that the expert in the interview - like the 9/11 Commission - completely ignores the existence of the internal core structure.  These steel beams were four times as thick as standard steel beams, and ran the height of the building.  So even if we accept everything else said by "your" expert - about the fires, the temperature at which steel can be affected, that the floors did in fact "pancake" onto each other - he still does not explain why the internal core "disappeared," since it would not have "pancaked" along with the floors, and should have (or at very least parts of it should have) remained standing even if the concrete "pancaked."

However, his ignoring of the internal core structure brings up a problem with his "free-fall" theory.  Since the concrete floors were also connected to the internal core via a series of trusses, the internal core itself would have affected the speed at which the floors collapsed.  That is, they had to "break away" from both the external "mesh" and the internal core structure.  Indeed, not only would this have affected the speed at which the floors fell, it would also have affected the manner in which they fell; i.e., they would almost certainly not have "pancaked" as "perfectly" as they did, but rather some parts would have collapsed on top of the next floor and "slid" in one direction or the other before that floor fully "disengaged" from both the external "mesh" and the internal core.

He is also "fudging" a bit when he talks about the temperature of the fires and the temperatures at which steel beams are affected enough to be severely weakened.  Ask any metallurgist or vulcanologist: steel beams do not weaken at temperatures as low as 300 degrees; that is pure poppycock.  (Indeed, if you checked out the link to the discussion of high-rise fires in steel and glass buildings, you will know that this claim is completely without merit.)

Steel melts at 2750 F (1370 C).  Gasoline can burn at a sustained temperature of about 1500 F (945 C).  However, even oxygenated fuel (like that used in airplanes) can only burn at a sustained temperature of about 2000 F.  Yet there was nothing for the fires in the towers to "feed on" that would have provided a sustained temperature anywhere near that high.  Indeed, as noted, the fact that the smoke turned from gray-white to black in less than half an hour proves that the fire was starving for oxygen, and thus could not possibly have been sustaining temperatures high enough to seriously affect solid steel beams, much less "melt" them.

Consider something for a moment.  When the shuttle blasts off, the propellant used creates a temperature of over 5000 F, and this is sustained for a good two to three minutes.  Yet even this temperature has no effect on the steel structure that the shuttle is poised on, and which takes the brunt of that emission.  So if steel - which admittedly melts at a sustained temperature of 2750 F - is not seriously affected at a sustained temperature of 5000 F for two to three solid minutes, what makes you think that even the initial explosion of the airplanes' fuel tanks (perhaps 2000-2500 F for thirty seconds) and the resultant fires (perhaps 1000 to 1250 F for twenty minutes, and then much lower) are going to seriously affect it?

You see - one does not have to be an expert, or have anything but a rudimentary knowledge of the subject, plus some logic and common sense (and, of course, the Internet for research).  I am not claiming to know as much as "your" expert.  But my facts above are facts, all of which can easily be found on the Internet on completely unbiased, science-oriented sites.

Peace.

Maani:

I have read all the articles you provided,the links in the articles and "googled" for some background information on the assorted experts.

One thing we can agree on is that the vast majority of commentators are extremely knowledgeable in the subject of metals,construction etc.

So why is there no general concensus? Outside of the fact that if there was a conspiracy then the conspirators would wheel out their own experts to shoot down the opposition experts,one has to say that it is quite obvious that no-one really knows.  In my experience,"experts" are just as likely to have an agenda of their own (TV interviews,the book about the theory etc) and as a consequence are just as likely to confuse "opinion" with "fact" as any layman.

I love conspiracy theories. They give endless fodder for speculation and can stimulate intelligent discussion.Every cataclysmic man-made world event brings out the experts.The only thing you can guarantee they will agree on-the importance of being seen as "The Number One Expert In Their Field".

Next week however,I may argue the opposite.

Tony R wrote: Dreamer wrote: I think the Israeli-palestinian issue is way too complex to be discussed on an internet forum, since there are so many aspects people are not taking into acount, and I am no expert. IMO Dreamer: Why can we not discuss this issue on an internet forum and why is it too complex ? Please indulge me with an answer............

I'm not saying that we "can't" discuss it on an internet forum, but I dont see much coming out of it. It is complex because of the many details and the long history that, maybe you know everything about, but I can't possibly tell you every single event, what led to it, and what it led to. It simply goes too far back.

The way I see it, each side can be justified and blamed. Eg. The Arabs cannot be blamed for fighting when a bit of thier land is given to a different people, yet where on earth would the Jewish people and survors of the holocust (who went through such a horrible experience) go to??

The avarage Israeli would most likely say the Israelis have a right for the land, but the Palestinian will say the opposite. Personally I can't say which one is right or wrong, thats why I think it is a complex topic.

Out of interest, whats your opinion on this?

I agree with more or less everything you say Tony. I am a Jewish Israeli my self, but that doesnt mean i have to agree with my government and accept what Sharon has done in his career as something good. I think it is wrong that the West Bank is occupied, not only is it provoking Arabs, but the soldiers have to defend them with thier lifes. That is something that I really dont understand. Because some people want "all of israel" they think its right for them to go into the center of a Muslim city infront of the sea, and than an innocent soldier has to stand outside the neighbourhood and defend the setlers. I see no excuse for this.

However if you want some pro israeli arguements: The Jews were forced out of Israel (or Judea) by the Romans with force. They went devided all round the world, and evereywhere they were chased and accused of anything that the locals felt like blaming them for. But unlike the Romans, the Jews survived and continued to exist till the 20th century. With the rising wave of anti-semetism Herzl said that the only way to solve this would be build a Jewish country and many agreed.

After WWII the whole world accepted this and the UN gave the Jews palestine, since it is thier historic and religious home, and they prayed to it twice a day for 2000 years. I think that is enough for the Jewish people to deserve Israel as thier country.

Anything is possible, but here are a few problems I have with this interview:

another problem is that it’s not presented as a theory, but as the only TRUTH.

The lack of evidence (although there is some good evidence) is made up for by repeating that “Bush is a criminal” and comparing him with Nazis and Stalinists.

But the animation Dreamer posted is pretty convincing… and the story about the passports and the Black Box as well….

But the biggest problem I have is: WHY DIDN’T BIN LADEN OR ANY OTHER ARABIC TERRORIST ORGANIZATION DENY THAT THE ATTACKS WERE ORGANIZED BY THEM?

Dreamer wrote: I agree with more or less everything you say Tony. I am a Jewish Israeli my self, but that doesnt mean i have to agree with my government and accept what Sharon has done in his career as something good. I think it is wrong that the West Bank is occupied, not only is it provoking Arabs, but the soldiers have to defend them with thier lifes. That is something that I really dont understand. Because some people want "all of israel" they think its right for them to go into the center of a Muslim city infront of the sea, and than an innocent soldier has to stand outside the neighbourhood and defend the setlers. I see no excuse for this. However if you want some pro israeli arguements: The Jews were forced out of Israel (or Judea) by the Romans with force. They went devided all round the world, and evereywhere they were chased and accused of anything that the locals felt like blaming them for. But unlike the Romans, the Jews survived and continued to exist till the 20th century. With the rising wave of anti-semetism Herzl said that the only way to solve this would be build a Jewish country and many agreed. After WWII the whole world accepted this and the UN gave the Jews palestine, since it is thier historic and religious home, and they prayed to it twice a day for 2000 years. I think that is enough for the Jewish people to deserve Israel as thier country.

very well said.  i agree the settlers who live in shacks on hilltops with rifles are freaking nuts and are just as bad for the peace process as hamas.  but I am just shocked by people on this board saying Israel has no right to exist.

NetsNJFan wrote: very well said.  i agree the settlers who live in shacks on hilltops with rifles are freaking nuts and are just as bad for the peace process as hamas.  but I am just shocked by people on this board saying Israel has no right to exist.

I dont think anyone is really saying that........just that the creation of Israel was done cack-handedly,that's all.