Israel and the U.S. CREATED Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/11/israel-and-the-u-s-created-hamas-hezbollah-and-other-terrorists-via-blowback.html

Larry Johnson – a counterterrorism official at the U.S. State Department – says:

The Israelis are their own worst enemies when it comes to fighting terrorism. They are like a guy who sets fire to his hair and then tries to put it out by hitting it with a hammer. They do more to incite and sustain terrorism than curb it.

As one example, Israel helped create Hamas.

*****************

Veteran journalist Robert Dreyfuss writes:

In the decades before 9/11, hard-core activists and organizations among Muslim fundamentalists on the far right were often viewed as allies for two reasons, because they were seen a fierce anti-communists and because the opposed secular nationalists such as Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, Iran’s Mohammed Mossadegh.

****************

In Syria, the United States, Israel, and Jordan supported the Muslim Brotherhood in a civil war against Syria. And … Israel quietly backed Ahmed Yassin and the Muslim Brotherhood in the West Bank and Gaza, leading to the establishment of Hamas.

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2011/09/remembering-and-understanding-911-2/

Oh, stop being silly.

Pakalert?? FFS!! Only loonies go there. Now we're scraping through the bottom of the barrel.

The building material is turning to dust as it falls!
(not after it hits the ground.)

To quote: "Al-Qazeda is a loose association of disenchanted Islamicists"

No news there.




This came from Dr. Who

Dustification!!! Run Away!!!!!



You're hilarious JB.


Too Much DustFrom 911Research:


If the collapses were merely gravity-driven, then any clouds of debris produced in the immediate aftermath should have occupied about the same amount of space as the intact towers before they had time to significantly mix into the surrounding air. The bulk of the clouds could only come from the expulsion of gases in the buildings as they collapsed, and the mixing of ambient air into the clouds. This just makes me shake my head in wonder. First, the expulsion of air from the towers would have been pretty impressive, second, air rushing in to fill the space formerly occupied by the towers would have been equally impressive. Falling debris would also have displaced a large amount of air. Together they would have created a huge amount of turbulence, just what was seen at Ground Zero.
Actually the dust cloud at street level bore a remarkable visual resemblance to a pyroclastic flow, a hot, dense mixture of volcanic ash and gases. The dust cloud was cool, but the cloud itself was a density flow, a mixture of dust and air much denser than normal air. Density flows, whether in air or water, maintain their identity for quite a while. They stop moving when they run out of momentum, the denser parts of the flow settle out, and the lighter parts mix with the surrounding medium. Now here's a theory for conspiracy buffs to toy with - maybe someone triggered a volcanic eruption under the Twin Towers.
I should know better than to ridicule conspiracy theories on line. I simply don't have enough imagination to top what conspiracy theorists actually come up with. If you search 9-11 and "pyroclastic," you will find sites that assert the dust cloud was an actual pyroclastic flow. I could assist these folks in learning the difference. All they need to do is find an active volcano and stand in the path of a real pyroclastic flow. I guarantee it would cure them of posting nutty stuff on the intartubes.
The drywall used around the central core of the towers was an inch and a half thick. Now that will create a lot of dust.
Somehow the collapse of a quarter-mile tall building was supposed to produce no turbulence so that the dust cloud would remain over the footprint of the building and mix gradually with still air. Shades of the Road Runner, who goes "beep-beep" and leaves a road-runner shaped dust cloud behind. This is physics several levels beyond weird.
A lot of people confuse optical density with amount of dust. The fact that the dust cloud was opaque means only that light didn't penetrate it. The clouds that hung above the site weren't much denser than air so the total volume of dust in them was not large. Typical clouds in the sky contain a few grams of material per cubic meter. If we assume the 9-11 cloud had 10 grams per cubic meter - far more than even thick water droplet clouds, and the dust cloud occupied a cubic kilometer, far more than its actual volume, we have a billion cubic meters times ten grams per cubic meters, or ten billion grams, ten million kilograms, or 10,000 tons of dust, paltry compared to the million ton mass of the towers.


http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm

So what's your point?

Bottom line is, the role of government is to "protect" people from their enemies and if there isn't any enemies there is no need for government, therefore governments make their own enemies.

If you watch the news, you will notice terrorism at work attempting to terrorize the people.

Call it what you like. It is turning to dust right before your eyes, it is captured on camera and film.

Laugh if you want. There it is.

Cars in parking lot, on fire:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/GJS-WTC105_toasted.jpg

Cars in parking lot, not on fire (afterwards)
http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/dewpics/toasted_lot_merc.jpg

I don't see anyone towing cars here.

Please, change this broken record.

Just yer average "pancake collaspe" one floor falling on top of another floor, right? LOL

As you can see debris on the roof of the adjacent building. It is clear that the car park is in the vicinity of the collapse.

What's your point then?

What exactly fell on the cars to start them on fire? Do you see any debris anywhere? I don't. I see mostly small bits of unburned paper and dust.

Has your raving got a point?


Free FallAccording to Roedy Green's How You Know 9-11 Was an Inside Job:
All three World Trade Towers fell faster over the first half of the collapse than physics allows by free fall. That meant they had to have an assist, e.g. an explosive push from pre-planted demolition charges, not just gravity pulling them down. The maximum collapse for free fall is computed by
distance = g t
where g is the acceleration due to gravity 32 feet per second per second, and t is time in seconds. In other words, free fall collapse should start out slowly and accelerate faster and faster for the big finale.

This is just plain weird. Whether a building falls by deliberate demolition or catastrophic failure, the collapse will be governed by gravity. Even if you used a teleporter to magically make several stories vanish, the part above would only fall as fast as gravity would accelerate it. Only if there was some kind of thruster pushing the building down could it fall faster. Why install a useless Rube Goldberg device? Once the building begins to collapse, who needs anything to accelerate it? Gravity has a pretty reliable record of pulling things down. And where's the evidence for faster than free fall collapse?
The videos show that the towers took 15 seconds to collapse. The free-fall time for something to fall 400 meters is about 9 seconds. So, no, the towers did not fall faster than free fall.
911Research claims:
This rate is still much too fast to be explained by a gravity-driven collapse given that the descending rubble would have to crush and accelerate almost 1000 feet of vertical intact structure. It is especially revealing that each tower disappeared at about the same rate as the rubble fell through the air, as if the tower's structure provided no more resistance to the descent of rubble than did air. All photos of the collapse show a plume of debris extending far below the main level of collapse. So the debris did fall appreciably faster than the building itself. The building provided little more resistance than air for the simple reason that a skyscraper is mostly air.
In the photo at left the collapse is about where the cloud fills the entire width of the picture, but the debris in free fall has almost reached the ground.

Note that the debris is at least a building width beyond the building itself. No competent controlled demolition flings debris that far.

The fall doesn't have to crush the stories beneath. It merely has to stress the structural elements until the fasteners pop and the welds break. The impact of that pancaking material will cause the outer vertical members to bow outward, then fly outward violently when failure occurs. There's no need to appeal to explosives to fling material outward from the buildings.
If a story is 4 meters high, it will take an object about 0.9 seconds to fall one story, by which time it will be going 9 m/sec. So once the collapse starts, the overlying structure will be falling at 9 m/sec by the time it has fallen one story. If we crush the collapsing story into rubble half a meter thick and expect the collapse to stop at that point, what kinds of forces are involved? We go from 9 m/sec to zero in half a meter, or 1/18 of a second. However, during that deceleration the velocity is decreasing, and the average velocity turns out to be half of the initial velocity, so the crunch time is 1/9 second. So the acceleration is -9 m/sec divided by 1/9 sec = -81 m/sec2, or about 8 g's.
This is the difference between a static load and a dynamic load. In the north tower, with about ten stories above the impact, the dynamic load was about equivalent not to ten stories but to eighty, nearly the total height of the building. I doubt if the tower at that level was engineered to support eighty stories - why waste the steel? Actually the loads are much greater because the initial collapse involved a fall of about three or four stories, not just one, and the dynamic loads on the points that actually resist the fall - the welds and the rivets, will be far greater. If you try to stop the collapse in the millimeter or so a rivet or weld can deform before failing, you're talking hundreds of g's. In the south tower, where the top 25 or so stories fell, the impact load at eight g's would be equivalent to 200 stories, or twice the total height of the building. Some conspiracy buffs argue that engineering standards require a safety factor several times the actual load on the structure, but the dynamic loads would far overwhelm those standards.
This, by the way, is the reason controlled demolition works at all. If physics worked the way 9-11 conspiracy buffs think, once you blew the lower stories of a building, the upper part would just drop and remain intact. Of course it doesn't because once the building begins to fall, the dynamic loads are far beyond the static strength of the building.
911Research devotes a lot of effort to debunking what it regards as disinformation campaigns designed to deflect attention from the theory of controlled demolition. But we keep coming back to the fundamental issue how any building can fall faster than gravity or why a conspirator would feel the need to set up a mechanism to do something so useless.

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm


Are you dragging up the old debunked stuff just to stall?

Also, if 'debris' fell on the cars and burned them, and the heat was so high that the cars turned to rust over night, why are there still green trees in the area and why, if the debris was to hot to burn car engines, that it did not start the roof of the building on fire?

Why don't you actually answer my question instead of cutting and pasting a lot of gobbed up ****?

Read it, it's called science. I know it must seem strange to you, but it proves my point.

So as not to bore me to death, posting copied nonsense, post something that makes a point and answers my question.

If the small amount of debris on the roof was so hot, hot enough to start car engines on fire, then why did the roof not catch fire?

The stuff on that roof looks like paper or maybe dust.

If the area was so extremely hot that it could rust a bunch of cars, then why are the trees still nice and green and undamaged?

Ah, that would be burning material. D'uh



Er, that would be considered debris. D'uh