Italian Supreme Court head calls for international 9/11 inquiry

reply to post by signalfire

Look at the videos of the buildings in mid-collapse. The outside aluminum sheathing and beams are being thrown hundreds of feet almost straight outwards with tremendous force.

It was steel.

Also, if you'll notice, only sections of it are being thrown out - all of them being the vertical supports (with a few horizontal pieces occasionally attached).

This is consistent with failure of joists under excessive torsion of the vertical supports.

The concrete floor is being molecularly disintegrated, it's water content boiling instantaneously, an amount of energy not available either kinetically or from the fire high above.

Oh my.... I'm sorry, I didn't realize how new most of this was to you.

Concrete doesn't have much water in it. The curing process for concrete involves the evaporation of water.

See my previous post for the explanation of your powderized concrete.

The massive steel core is that black smoke rising upwards, that's a mushroom cloud although not the kind we expect to see.

A mushroom cloud is generated any time hot air rises rapidly. As the air begins to cool, the still super-heated air below it continues to force its way upwards, causing the cooler air (and the debris it contains) to slide and 'drop' away.

The steel core ended up scattered at the base of the collapse (most of the building was empty air). The black smoke was vast amounts of unburned polycarbonates. You see that a lot in building fires.

Get it through your heads people. New York City was nuked.

You know.....

I've watched the 9/11 conspiracies since a couple weeks after the event. I've seen the evolution of the argument.

At first - almost everyone was onboard with the idea that there was something amiss about the aircraft that crashed into the towers. "extra fuel tanks!" they argued.

Then we had issues with the Pentagon: "human pilots could not have possibly made the maneuver that brought the plane into the pentagon!" - with a side argument of "It was a missile that hit the pentagon!"

Then we got to the controlled demolition argument and its many variants - which has lost a lot of ground in the collapse of the towers and, instead, become popular to explain WTC7 (because WTC7 just -had- to be demolished to anger America enough for the conspiracy to work).

After a lot of the conspiracies were subjected to scrutiny and none of them really survived the debates intact (most of the time the conspiracy crowd would fragment into a hundred different exclusive arguments) - we started seeing some of the more "creative" explanations.

One of them, I # you not, involves an orbital particle cannon (The "GDI Ion Cannon - as I like to call it).

The 'why' is another issue, but it obviously has a lot to do with demonizing Iraq and Muslims (since several of the alleged hijackers were Saudis, why did we not invade or bomb Saudi Arabia???)

Except 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq.

The planning and orchestration of the attack was done by 'AQ' - largely funded and centralized in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Which is where we struck.

Iraq, admittedly, was a "oh, and while we're here..." Though the port and aircraft infrastructure in Iraq has been very useful in operations in this entire theater. I can't help but feel the decision to strike at Iraq was as much of a logistics issue as it was to remove a known developer of chemical and biological weapons (that we did not want to end up in the hands of AQ - and there really is no telling what people in various countries will do for money that AQ has plenty of).

Or, maybe use your BBQ for an example. Build a fire in the thing, add some kerosene, let it burn for all of 57 minutes (the time it took for the second building to be hit to fall) and watch the legs of the BBQ collapse into themselves in a pile of smoking dust and U-shaped beams.

You... really don't understand the concept of a model, do you?

How about, in the barbeque pit, placing a 50lb weight suspended one foot above the grill by a few steel beams no thicker than what comprises aluminum eyeglass frames.

That's to simulate the upper sections of the floor supported by steel struts that were exposed to the fire. When the steel weakens, it will sag in some locations until, finally, one support's integrity drops too low and causes the burden on the other supports to shift abruptly and above their failing points - triggering a rapid and complete collapse of the support system.

Then your 50lb weight slams into your barbeque pit.

I swear... this is what happens when kids grow up doing nothing but playing video games.

reply to post by Aim64C

Iraq, admittedly, was a "oh, and while we're here..." Though the port and aircraft infrastructure in Iraq has been very useful in operations in this entire theater.

You seem to know alot about international politics and U.S. foreign affairs. Interestingly, the ones who have made the decisions have had complete different version of what the reasons were for the Iraq-war and for the following regime changes in the Middle East.
They have expressed their motives on numerous occasions before and certainly after september 11, for someone so devoted to details something easily to find out with few google searches.


From the horse's mouth:

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

Letter to Clinton Jan.1998

Pre-9/11 planning

Middle East "War:" How Did It Come to This?

by David Wurmser, Published in the Washington Times, by the American Enterprise Institute, Jan. 1, 2001, and on Our Jerusalem-dot-com, Jan. 29, 2001.

"Israel and the United States should adopt a coordinated strategy to regain the initiative and reverse their regionwide strategic retreat. They should broaden the conflict to strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region—the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza. That would reestablish the recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is suicidal."

David Wurmser, VP Cheneys former Middle-East Advisor, State Department

Post-9/11: for everyone to know

The “New Middle East” project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” –which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region– would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives.

Your explanation of the reasons for the Iraq-War is pretty simplistic and does not coincide with the information available. The same goes with the reasons for the war in Afghanistan, the Taiban, Al-Quida etc., you would find an entirely different version, put forward directly from those responsible.
This alone would warrant a new investigation, something that should been done by all the Nations involved, before they became allies in the 'war on terror'.

Am I the only one who got hungry when I read "Italian Supreme" ? Like really tho


If there is one thing about Italy is has got to be the fact that everyone there eats pizza almost every hour.

reply to post by Aim64C


Many other international law scholars agree with him. I give him credit because if he's not somewhere in the right ballpark then this is career suicide.

"Imposimato is not the only legal scholar to call for prosecutions and/or further investigations into 9/11. Many other high-level legal jurists, professors and trial lawyers have said the same thing. See this and this." -from- www.washingtonsblog.com...

the This and this referred to - 911summary.com... and l911t.com...

I think he has a point but its hard to assume the bush administration was competint enough to pull it off. Bi mean the amount of people involved would be unreal. But so many call for a better investigation i say why not?