-
-
- CNN’s Tapper lends himself to claustrophobic discussion of unicorn– Israel’s … 0
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges … 18
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel 15
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 48
- Exile and the prophetic: No dissenter is an island 8
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to … 20
- Demonizing Mandy Patinkin is a tough sell 24
- ‘If I had to choose between the wealth of the … 15
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 676
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 312
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 203
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 145
- San Francisco bus ads condemn Israeli apartheid: backlash begins 120
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 101
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 100
-
- Dershowitz calls Hawking an ‘ignoramus,’ a ‘lemming,’ and likely an … 149
- Glenn Greenwald brings facts and reason to ‘Real Time’, ruins … 88
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 82
- Israeli right-wing flys off the deep end following Hawking boycott 78
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 63
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
- Church of Scotland backs away from boycott call in the … 62
-
- The Latest from Mondoweiss for 05/19/2013 - http://t.co/CEtLw0LHmv, 5 hours ago
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges but thrust is unchanged http://t.co/FCgbAw9vEO, 18 hours ago
- Exile and the prophetic: No dissenter is an island http://t.co/vnbRO0AgjV, 23 hours ago
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to be http://t.co/j9GvEIOYqI, 23 hours ago
- Guatemalan genocide got assist from US, Christian Right, and Israel http://t.co/oJT9HsoQcD, 23 hours ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack (48)
- Alex Kane: Yes, you’re absolutely right Henry, my oversight.
- Accentitude: I completely agree with this statement: “This is the only place in the world where I feel that it means...
- Accentitude: Actually there is a formal defined Palestine. It was adopted by a majority of the planet earth not too...
- Islamophobia is as widespread and acceptable as anti-Semitism used to be (20)
- Kathleen: Islamophobia is far more accepted than anti semitism. Especially with the Pam Geller’s of the world...
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani (50)
- Walid: Annie, read both and I agree that WU is somewhat amateurish but I wouldn’t go as far as branding her a...
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on Easter weekend; Israel apologizes to Egypt (15)
- Accentitude: I was covering this even “Sabt al Nour” or the day of the Holy fire that is referred to in...
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel (63)
- irmep: I emailed several people in charge of fielding the survey, mentioning this discussion. Two of them responded...
- Church of Scotland’s revised ‘Promised Land’ report has softer edges but thrust is unchanged (18)
- talknic: RJL” if they butt into Israel’s business “ Israeli activities in territories “outside the...
- Exile and the Prophetic: Joseph Massad strikes again (12)
- yonah fredman: Massad’s essay is toxic. (It is poison with the purpose of poison rather than the purpose of...
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi Marmara (82)
- Hostage: Really? In August 1948 Emil Ghoury, a member of the Arab Higher Committee, the “Cabinet” of the Palestinian...
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack (48)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Adam Horowitz
- Allison Deger
- Annie Robbins
- Kate
- Today in Palestine
- Alex Kane
- Eleanor Kilroy
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
Yeah, the notion of forcing a woman to marry her rapist dates back to at least the Torah, but that doesn't make it any less sick and wrong.
It's not a matter of Muslim countries in general, but in Islamic states there is apartheid in the sense of unequal rights and protections between men and women under their laws. I'm not one to agree with Geller, and certainty not one to condone her support for Israeli apartheid, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Right under "stop US aid to Islamic states", perhaps someone could add: as it only serves to prop up brutal dictators in exchange for their complacency towards Israeli apartheid.
Bah, next you'll be denying that Israel invented the cherry tomato. /s
Seriously though, you're question can basically be reduced to why do hasbarists hasbara?
Thank you David and Tree. Considering the fact that Morris cites a book from '92 rather than a document from '67, I'm figuring there's probably not any really substantiation for the claim.
Any chance you can tell me what source Morris cites for his claim that "Withing days both countries had rejected the offer"? I see the sentence is marked as being derived from footnote 120, but I'm just working with a Google Books preview which doesn't give me access to the actual footnotes to determine the source.
Dersh has tried to debate Finkelstein, it didn't go well.
The story goes that the Israeli cabinet voted unanimously to make such offers, and asked the the US to relay it to Egpyt and Syria, but Avi Shlaim notes on p 254 of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World:
Also, while the article implies that Egypt and Jordan had rightful claims to the Gaza Strip and and the West Bank respectively, they never actually did, just like Israel doesn't to this day. Both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank have been Palestinian territory since they were carved off from the Ottoman Empire as such.
Rather, you omit the fact that the visa privilege is reciprocal in the case of those other countries, while Phil simply noted the fact that this bill would have it otherwise with Israel.
House of Cards is actually Netflix's second original series, Lillehammer came first. Both are excellent, while the third isn't worth mentioning.
Nonsense. Other countries do treat prisoners similarly with little criticism from our establishment, Israel and Saudi Arabia being two notable examples.
Good stuff. Hit the settlers where it hurts: in the taste buds. I rarely eat ice cream, but just had some Ben & Jerry's the other day, and I'll make that my last until they start living up to their Social Mission.
Zionist terrorism started long before 1947. The first example I'm aware of is the 1924 murder of Jacob Israël de Haan, and other notable examples are included in this list of Irgun attacks which starts in 1937.
Perhaps this is true for some of the small minority of Middle Easterners who are Christians. However, it doesn't make any sense regarding the vast majority who are Muslims, as the Qur'an doesn't support the claim that Jesus was martyred. See An-Nisa 157:
Actually, the President has constitutional authority to decline to execute unconstitutional statutes.
Sure, but mostly just the Southern faction of the establishment was against abolition at the time anyway. I'm referring to nearly a hundred years later, when JFK made moves to wind down the Cold War, including our involvement in Vietnam, and took steps to reign in the CIA. Those were moves the establishment was nearly unanimously against, much as they are regarding any limitations on the blank check to Israel today.
It's hardly right to blame Obama though, given what happened to the last President who demonstrated the courage of his convictions to take on the establishment.
From the second paragrpah of the Daily Beast article:
Googling for "extreme organization" on bdsmovement.net turns up not a single use of the phrase, in reference to Reut or otherwise. Googling for the prhase along with the names Reut and BDS movment only turns up links back to the Daily Beast article, copies of it, and "extreme orignization" being used to describe the BDS movment, the IHH, and the Iraqi government, nothing from the BDS movment using the phrase to describe Reut. So, did Eran Shayshon start his article off with a fabrication?
"The logo looks like an Iron Dome missile battery. "
I get the impression they were going for a handshake/heart look, but the Israeli hand only has three fingers and a thumb, while the American hand has for fingers but isn't wide enough for a thumb. It's fitting in that respect though, a poorly thought out logo for a poorly reasoned cause.
Seafoid didn't claim the boost was instant, and the 2006 and 2010 polls show an increase of 9 and 13% respectively over 2002, culminating in 10% higher than ever before.
Not quite as tasteless as whoever dressed up these kids as the Twin Towers (complete with flaming jets sticking out the sides), but tasteless non the less.
The origin of the name clearly predates Christianity. Scroll up on that Wiki article I linked to the section on Judaism.
Surely Gabriel isn't a particularity uncommon name among Muslims? After all, the angel plays a rather key roll in Islam:
link to en.wikipedia.org
What ethnic criteria for citizenship in Spain, France, and Britain are you referring to specifically? I'm fairly sure there aren't any.
Virgule, making all Palestinians under Israeli control voting citizens of Israel would effectively reverse the Zionists' acquisition of territory by force, not just what they've taken since '67 either, but everything since they started in late '47, as less that half the electorate would be Zionists.
Is Dan Rather really so ignorant as to believe that correlation equals causation?
I suspected the quote was less than authentic, so I looked it up, and sure enough, Geller put a period where there should be a comma, and left off the rest of the verse. Given the whole verse, it obviously isn't declaring a plan to "cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers" in general as Geller would have us believe, but rather only ones who've "joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". Furthermore, the capitalized "We" and larger context make it obvious that it's supposed to be God speaking in in the majestic plural about His own intentions rather than a call to action for Muslims.
Ah, so you are under the misconception that the UN partition plan had some sort of legal weight, even though it was only voted on by the UNGA, and never approved by the UNSC.
Well I'm still curious to know what assigning of land you are referring to exactly, as I'm quite sure there never actually was anything of the sort.
Eljay, I'm at a loss to make sense of your talk of granting of land. Are you under the misconception that the UN partition plan had some sort of legal weight, or what are you referring to exactly?
The officer was referring to the draft in Israel, which could have been avoided by staying in the US.
There was no mass migration of Arabs to Palestine, nor anywhere else for that matter. The existing populations simply adopted Arabic and Islam after Muslims ran the Byzantines out.
Blurring the distinction between allegations and facts is how we wound up in the Iraq quagmire and various other misguided adventures, the vast majority of the population having believed Saddam was stockpiling WMDs and the like. Another dangerous distinction to ignore is that between nuclear capability and nuclear weapons capability: Iran has unabashedly been developing the former, but only allegedly have they ever worked on the latter.
Google only filters out words like naked if you have your safe search setting on strict.
Reminiscent of what Netanyahu said here:
Perhaps you are being facetious here, but the photo Shmuel linked isn't actually from Ynet. He was joking.
Google didn't turn up anything else on the topic from the named author, Rafael Castro. Put me down for Onion.
That's basically my point. The war profiteering faction of our corporate establishment has always been happy for conflict wherever they can find it, and the rest of the people with the money/power to actually intercede aren't bothered enough to do so. Take the Israel lobby out of the picture and our war machine might still be more focused on South America or South East Asia rather than the Middle East, but it would still be getting it's war on all the same. While I disagree with Chomsky in many regards, he is right about this.
Strawman much? I didn't claim "agitating for", "quietly going along with" is a more fitting characterization.
No, not a "hardon for", but I've yet to see any opposition to it from the corporations you mention, and I certainly don't expect to see any from corporations like Boeing, Mcdonnell Douglas, Exxon Mobil and Chevron.
Sure, but the American cooperate establishment doesn't, and their the ones with all the money/power, and most of them aren't Jewish.
Some of the Talmud is considered to be revelation, the Mishnah sections, while the Gemarah is comparable to Muslim legal opinions. See The Oral Law over at Chabad's website for more details. But yeah, there is a lot of selective quoting of Talmud and outright fabrications used to bash Jews, and comparable misrepresentations of Qur'an and Hadith used to bash Muslims. Granted, such texts have their share of things that many will find distasteful even when understood in context, but apparently bigots can't help but embellish when demonizing their targets.
I've long been baffled by the many people who are committed to exposing how flagrantly dishonest our establishment's position on Israel and Palestine is, yet treat things like our establishment's position on 9/11 as if it were sacrosanct. I hope to find the answer to that some day, and am disappointed to find that Mondoweiss has now become yet another place where exploring the question is verboten.
I'm also disappointed with the new rule on Shoah and Nakba denial. Not because I condone such ignorance, but rather because I'm a strong believer in the old adage that sunshine is the best disinfectant.
I can see how many people wouldn't want to fund vulgarity like this. ;)
The thing is, the region was referred to as Palestine long before the period which the fictional story of Ben-Hur was set in, as explained here.
The surprising part is where Santorum suggests that Mexico is US territory.
"Exactly the argument the Zionists make "
Nonsense, their argument is that Israelis treatment of Palestinians isn't really a problem, while I've no interest in excusing any form of bigotry.
"I believe Donald raised the form of bigotry that he believes is a problem on Mondoweiss and that should be addressed."
He did that in his point 4, while I was adressing point 5.
"But why should we not still say it is serious enough if people get hurt because of it?"
Nobody suggested that. The issue is that you singled out one form of bigotry and labeled it serious, while neglecting to even mentioning any of the other forms of bigotry which far more people get hurt because of on a far more regular basis. On a side, your attempt to link to this article was thwarted by mangled code.
And another.
No, all the investigators need not be in on a cover-up, just the few in charge of the investigation can limit access to the evidence to that which supports the official line and quash anyone who dissents from that. Besides, considering the radar data presented at the site Phil linked, it's the official story which is far-fetched.
...and Lieutenant Colonel, not Lieutenant.
...and retired, not former.
The 2009 G20 in Pittsburgh was just as bad, this video being one notable example.
Tariq Ali did a better job of making this point on Democracy Now:
Granted, considering the fact that our government never even produced enough evidence to indict bin Laden for 9/11, there's no reason to suspect they could have actually convicted him for the attacks.
"The choice issue," aka abortion.
Heh, Mooser, I get the impression you don't even know the half of it. I recommend listening to Dr. Seymour Pollack and Dr. Bernard Diamond attempt to hypnotically implant Sirhan with motive and memory of the murder in his jail cell, which can be found starting around 37:40 in the documentary Evidence of Revision part 5, which can be found here:
link to archive.org
Notably, "that's the picture I've gotten from you, the feelings about you; this intense Arab nationalist who feels the American polical figures are letting the Arab world down", "if you really want the world to see the Arab suffering and to see that American policy has helped that suffering, why I say don't you remember all this", and "to you, at that time, Kennedy was the biggest bastard the biggest in the world, he was the biggest son of a bitch." There's some Zionist justice in action.
It seems most likely to me that attacks were masterminded by some faction of corporate fatcats in the global banking cartel and military industrial complex. They undeniably benefited most from the attacks, of course have connections to people in governments and intelligence agencies all through the world to set the stage, and can easily scrounge up a few handfuls of Arab mercenaries to set up as patsies.
"...so the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message.
hmm"
Yeah, it's a shame we haven't been made privy to how that investigation turned out.
I've seen that discussion, and yes he says "inside job," which is blaming people within the US establishment for 9/11, not Mossad. Granted, he goes on to suggest the people behind the attacks had assistance from intelligence agencies including Mossad, but in contradiction to what Western Sky and the Jewbashers who titled that video you linked claim, O'Keefe clearly refutes the suggestion that Israel was behind 9/11.
"Ken O’Keefe blames 9/11 on the Mossad."
From what I've seen of O’Keefe, that's not his position on the matter. I don't suppose you can quote him to support your claim, can you?
300 lbs is a rather light gorilla. 800 lbs gorilla is the traditional expression.
"if someone came onto your property and started erecting a pro-Yesha sign"
Nobody tried to erect any sign, though I do understand why you had to resort to such hyperbole, as your line of argument falls flat on it's face without it.
I figure Markos thinks of Daily Kos much like he thinks of the CIA, "a very liberal institution... interested in a stable world... as an organisation our heart is in the right place."
William Blackstone founded the movement for political Zionism a couple of years before Herzl came on board.
Is that true? I'm no expert on who is Jewish or otherwise, but glancing through the list at the list left I'm doubting it's anywhere close to half Jewish, right-wingers and otherwise.
It says "largely Christian," obviously referring to the fact that around 36% of American Christians "believe that Israel fulfills the biblical prophecy about Jesus' second coming." In regard to "chiefly," sure the majority of the Zionist chieftains of the are Jewish, but they wouldn't have accumulated their money and connections without that massive Christian Zionist voting block from the beginnings of the Zionist movement, nor can the Zionist chieftains (both Jewish and otherwise), retain their control of policy without that massive Christian Zionist voting block. I contend it's irresponsible to not acknowledge as much.
Nah, that's just tea partyer fluff music. Abe needs to listen to this:
link to youtube.com
Yeah, I'm starting to wonder if Wikileaks is controlled opposition, damage control for the establishment, as they seem to only release details on issues many people are already well aware of at least in general sense.
Keith,
Since you admit you aren't capable of comprehending the technical arguments in favor of the official story for how the WTC buildings came down, I can't rightly expect you to comprehend technical explanations of how wrong the authorities you appeal to are. So, instead I'll defer to the authority of Paul Craig Roberts to explain how sites like Counterpunch wouldn't even let him report simple facts in dispute of the official story of how the buildings came down:
link to youtube.com
Now, surely you can understand that people interested in the truth have no need to suppress descending arguments, and rather welcome open discussion of the facts so that misconceptions can be exposed as such? To further drive this point home, try looking around for 9/11 related articles and post an innocuous comment suggesting you have some doubts about official conspiracy theory, and so do many people who have far more qualifications for doing so than yourself, while linking to the following site to prove as much:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com
I've had such innocuous comments blocked or deleted from all sorts of sites, most recently the Huffington Post. I'm not suggesting they're all in on the conspiracy though, and rather figure they are simply in denial of what is an ugly yet irrefutable truth, much like yourself.
That said, you can watch a civil engineer demonstrate how wrong the official story is with simple experiments here:
link to youtube.com
Please note what he suggests at the video; don't believe people just because they can employ equations you don't understand to tell you what you prefer to believe; ask them to try to prove as much through experiments. They haven't because they can't, because what they are telling you can't happen in physical reality, or even a computer simulation thereof.
Yep, that's the a logical hypothesis, and the only logical hypothesis when considering the video evidence of the rate and scale of the destruction of the WTC buildings with respect to the laws of physics. But again. it's not a conspiracy theory until one starts speculating as to who planted the explosives.
Well, only the second of your three proclamations of faith is reasonably supported by the publicly available evidence, while the third is tenuous at best, and the first stands in flagrant contradiction to the laws of physics.
The publicly available evidence simply can't be squared to support the notion of a lone gunman, there's no solid evidence to suggest Oswald was among the shooters, and the notion that it could have been pinned on Oswald absent a high-level conspiracy is patently absurd.
I suspect you are correct on both counts there, though one can't rightly rule out such possibilities, as he allowed the cover-ups of both.
No, conspiracy theories are theories of two or more people conspiring together to commit a crime, like "al Qaeda operatives were behind 9/11" or "the Bush admin was behind 9/11," or whatever. On the other hand, the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings is a scientific theory, constructed from the available evidence and the laws of physics. People just dismiss the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings by falsely branding it "conspiracy theory" because it debunks the "al Qaeda operatives were behind 9/11" conspiracy theory which people such as yourself have ignored the laws of physics to misplace your faith in.
As for JFK, there was most certainly more than one gunman, as evidenced most notably by a proper analysis of the medical/autopsy evidence. However, again it's not a conspiracy theory until one starts speculating as to who the conspirators might have been.
Avnery was talking about the Israeli population there, as they were surprised. On the other hand, the establishment knew damned well that the Arab states didn't have a chance, as Avnery explains here.
All good, but I believe an important but commonly overlooked fact is that Jews have always been a minatory of the Zionists in the world, while the vast majority are Christians, as that completely undermines the misguided notion that anti-Zionism is an expression of Judeophobia. Also worth considering is the support from robber barons like J.D. Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan, as such individuals have always been the real source of power behind the Zionist movement, and again most of them not Jewish by any stretch.
Regardless, I thank you much for your report.
The Nazis' preferential treatment of Zionists played a part, as did Zionists' disregard for Jews who didn't share their ethnic-nationalist ideology, evidenced by the quotes listed here.
My bad, I'd meant "nary a Jew in the world wanted anything to do with taking control over Palestine."
Actually, organized Jewry was so opposed to Zionism from the start that:
It wasn't until after the Shoah that Zionism gained mainstream support amongst Jews, the Nazis having murdered much of the opposition while letting Jews who embraced Zionism immigrate to Palestine.
Actually, "for the Greater Good" implies that some evils can be justified in the service of an assumed "Greater Good," as this collection of clips from Hot Fuzz sums up well, and which explains their deferring to U.S. foreign policy. That said, I hope they see the error of their ways.
It's not just the neocons, as H.W. Bush evidenced when he said:
Being familiar with how the minds of Zionists work, I'm guessing his "an ancient terror” was a reference to Amalek.
Rather, that band of hothead Jews went so far as to object to the way other Jews chose to conduct themselves, and it was the baseless hatred of those hothead Jews which inspired the Romans to destroy the temple, much as the baseless hatred of hothead Zionists today seems likely to cause the current state of Israel to implode in the near future.
That video is a masterpiece.
People should be committed to insane asylums for calling Israel's decades long colonization of the West Bank a "peace process."
Keith,
Your inability to comprehend why the buildings were brought down with explosives does nothing to change the fact that it's physically impossible for them to have come down anything like they did without explsoives. At least in the case of the towers that is, the way WTC 7 came down could theoretically be done though some elaborate means other than explosives, but the fact remains that explosives were used. The final sequence of explosions which brought down WTC were even faintly recorded by an interview mic four blocks away.
Donald,
Do you comprehend the fact that while one could come up with a bunch of math and diagrams to explain how Uri Geller bends spoons with his mind, that wouldn't prove he does? I didn't dismiss the equations Bazant used, only his fudging them around to support a story which has no basis in reality. Furthermore. Bazant only vaguely references the physical properties of the towers, while making declarations of crush-down before crush-up which would be easily demonstrable with a simple model of any scale, were it not for the fact that his claims have no basis in reality.
Besides, these wonderful computers we have provide a means of full scale testing of physical phenomena which can also be used to produce a reasonable semblance of experimental conformation of real world behavior. This video shows some examples from one of the most impressive of such simulation programs I've seen. Also, you can find some info on a simulation of a fire-induced progressive collapse here, though as the researchers note:
That's about the best you could ever hope for in the contrast of the official story, as one can't get anywhere close to the ~2/3 free fall acceleration and saturated speed of the towers with fire while respecting the laws of physics, as many experts will tell you.
Anyway, while I'm no expert, you're only further deluding yourself my imaging me as ignorant on such matters as you. You're also fooling yourself by mistaking this as a partisan issue, as there are many who speak out against the 9/11 cover-up across both sides of the political spectrum, and I'm a libertarian who has no allegiance to either side. Finally, much of the arguments made by those so-called "debunking sites" are completely bunk.
Donald links yet again to something else I've already read. Anyway, one can find a collection of comments from demolitions experts who aren't in denial of the fact that explosives were used on 9/11 here. I wonder if Donald will bother to read that.
Berthe,
Edna Cintron was surely getting a nice cool breese from the air sucked in by what little fires were there near the center of the buiding at that point. By the way, some pre-911 info on how strong the towers were. Most notably, the lead structural engineer, John Skilling:
Note that believing the official story doesn't just require believing the man who built the towers and his team was wrong, but completely wrong, as the buildings structures were not "still there" by any stretch. On the other hand, one only has to look to how steel-frame high-rises are typically brought down to see the truth, though of course the top-down destruction of the towers was an atypical form of explosive demolition.
Bandolero,
I assure you that WTC 1, 2, and 7 couldn't have come down as they did absent explosives, lots of explosives in the case of the first two. As Mooser's approach seems so effective, see this video explanation of WTC 1 & 2 in that style, and another for WTC 7.
Syvanen,
A particularly keen scientist by the name of Richard Feynman once said:
With that in mind, the official story total destruction of the WTC buildings is so very wrong that neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to provide any semblance of experimental confirmation to support it. If you insist on contending otherwise, please take the time to put your beliefs to the test, as that is the day you will learn some basic physics which currently eludes you.
Berthe,
I'm simply saying that the WTC buildings were not cast iron by any stretch, and rather were framed with steel. But again, you are correct in your general argument, the buildings would have held together just fine if it wasn't for all the explosives.
RoHa,
The official story of the alleged hijackers is arguably as full of holes as that of the destruction of the WTC buildings.
By the way, the grammatical mistakes like my "his" and "he" are the results of dyslexia impaired proofreading after paraphrasing myself. Please don't take them as anything but that.
Berthe,
Syvanen was referring to the fact that pure iron is somewhat heaver and far more brittle than steel . Granted, his was just nitpicking the trivial matter of your mistakenly referring to steel as iron to avoid addressing your point.
Sure, but that couldn't have happened without the mass amounts of explosives which blasted multi ton chunks of the steel supports loose, many flying hundreds of feet laterally, lodging some into the surrounding buildings. Absent explosives all the way down the towers, the top section would've ground to a halt before hitting the ground.
Calculating the PE of a free standing structure as a point mass to claim has enough energy to crush itself is absurd, and it's around triply use the height of the building rather than it's center of mass, and that is just the big stuff. Please take the time musings to the test of experimental confirmation, as you'll find you can no more do so than those who proclaim belief in psychic spoon bending.
Note the fact that WTC 7 had no jet fuel in it, and according to the official story came down primarily due to office fires. Again, you defenders of the official story keep telling me there’s gold in them thar hills, but I ain't seein' no prospectin’.
Donald
What matters is the fact that removing the supports tales a lot of force, far more than what one can expect or will ever see accomplished by fire, regardless of if a building is hit by a jet (WTC 1 & 2) or otherwise (WTC 7). Furthermore, traditional controlled demolitions, as WTC 7 was, kick out the support from the bottom ~ 1/3 to allow the upper ~2/3 to build the acceleration to crush itself on the ground. Blasting out the top ~1/4 - 1/6 (WTC 2 & 1) respectively, would result top section shredding itself into the bottom and grinding to a halt well before it hit the ground. This is a simple matter of Newton's Third Law.
Please think this through. If the official story had any basis in reality, I'd refine and patent fire-induced demolition to make a fortune. You're telling me there's gold in them thar hills, but where's all the prospectin'? This is the reason demolition companies haven't cut their overhead in response to the supposed discovery of fire-induced demolition, saving money on explosives by starting fires; the official story has no basis in reality.
Syvanen,
While you are correct in explaining the difference between iron and steel, you're living in a fantasy world in imaging that nobody calling it out is the same as nobody spiting it. Rather, I simply didn't care to nitpick that misconception, as the pseudoscientific spiel which is the official story for how the WTC buildings came down is far more deserving of attention.
Tell me, did you read through the comments from structural engineers which I linked previously above? If you'd to take issue with anything said by them, or by me, I'd be happy to explain how you're wrong. Until then, you are just picking at low hanging fruit to fallaciously defend your own misconceptions.
Also, for those who might think I replied to Donald too soon to have read the paper he linked. It's not that I didn't take the time to read it, but rather that I'd read it long before he posted it here. On the other hand, I can't help but wonder if Donald ever read it himself, as he seems completely incapable of addressing the physics of the matter in his own words.
Donald.
Bazant and his congregation can fudge equations around and scrawl out pictures while rambling on about what an expert he is from here to oblivion. However, neither him nor anyone else will ever provide any semblance of experimental confirmation to back his arguments, because they have no basis in reality. On the other hand, anyone with a clear head and at least a rudimentary understanding of Newtonian physics can understand reality.