Many 9/11 Tribute Programs.....but

[VHG]

As the 9/11 date (or 11/9 as we in the UK know it) comes round there seems to be dozens of TV programs on at the moment about 9/11 and its aftermath.

It is of course right we feel sorry for the people involved in 9/11 and their families who still survive.

However, because of the number of TV channels and video cameras available in that country, giving more visibility of the attack, there is a danger of giving the USA more sympathy than perhaps other countries.

Some of us are old enough to remember the Vietnam war, where America used two awful chemicals on the people Vietnam.

One was Napalm, which stuck to people's bodies and burned them. More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalm#Military_use

The other was Agent Orange, a chemical used to remove the leaves from trees so the enemy could not hide under them. More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

The use of this chemical has caused untold misery to hundreds of thousands of people in Vietnam since the end of the war.

Here is an article on the BBC web site today talking about the effects of Agent Orange on the people of Vietnam (a TV program is shown on BBC1 London tonight).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23632245

So while you watch the TV programs about 9/11 just remember the death and misery the USA caused to a country the other side of the world (and now condemns Syria for the use of chemicals in War!).

Sometimes you read what you sow.

[DrFilth]

naomi24 have a read about how many tons of steel were used to build the two towers and then look at the picture you have posted a link too and have a think

[naomi24]

DrFilth, So you're saying that had the buildings been constructed to a proper standard they wouldn't have collapsed. Is that right? If it is, I still don't see what point you're trying to make in relation to this thread.

[vascop]

Let's try and discuss the original post for goodness' sake.

[B00]

S'not just me then naomi? you're equally befuddled? LOL

[DrFilth]

B00 >
It's reap what you sow...
And you're saying the deaths of those thousands in the Twin Towers was justified then?

Wow! <

DrFilth >
B00 don't agree with that as i watched the second plane fly into the second tower live on the television <

Boo i was just pointing out that i don't agree with what happened to the twin towers

[naomi24]

B00, befuddled is a good word. :o/

[DrFilth]

noami plenty to read about it

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001. The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Professor James Fetzer states that 9/11 was the first and only time in history that any steel structure had collapsed due to fire. It had never been recorded in the history of structural engineering before 9/11 or since. The Government wants us to believe that on 9/11 the laws of physics were suspended. Fires in the buildings did not burn hot enough to melt or weaken steel.

[naomi24]

DrFilth, but that's a different topic altogether. It has nothing to do with the question.

[naomi24]

VHG, I don't really understand your take on this. You seem to be saying that one wrong negates another. Are you?

[DrFilth]

naomi24 >
B00, befuddled is a good word. :o/ <


naomi are you still befuddled or do you now understand why i asked what happened to all the steel ?

[jim360]

The Laws of Physics were clearly not suspended, as the tower collapsed after a plane crashed into it. A plane that was bigger than a 707 anyway, never mind the point that just because the buildings were designed to survive a plane crash doesn't mean they would in practice. Various simulations have shown that a form of domino effect is perfectly adequate to explain the collapse, couple with the fact that a number of steel girders were slashed through. It only needed one or two floors to be weakens to set the whole thing of, as one floor smashed into the one below it, and so on down the building. The collapse is more likely to do with the fact that we didn't understand the physics of buildings quite so well in the 60s as we do now than some sort of conspiracy.

[DrFilth]

was waiting for that word >conspiracy. <

[naomi24]

DrFilth, I understand you think there was a problem with the construction, but that is not a discussion that is relevant here. It detracts from the original question. We're not talking about why or how the Twin Towers collapsed, but whether or not it is fair to say that the US has reaped what it has sown. A different topic altogether.

[DrFilth]

naomi24 >
DrFilth, //first question i asked after they collasped was where have all the steel girders gone ? //

What do you mean?
07:58 Mon 09th Sep 2013 <

naomi you asked and i have tried to answer

[jim360]

In terms of the original question, yes the US is probably (well, certainly) hypocritical when it comes to Chemical Weapons use. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. That should not stop the World from taking action on Chemical Weapons use today. The main consideration should be whether or not intervention would help the Syrian people. I think it's the answer to that last question that is the source of most of the argument over Syria.

[berniecuddles]

hey drfilth nice to see you back on here its been a while hope your well lol i was bernie6969 but changed to cuddles long story

[Gromit]

One of the documentaries feTured this gentleman who was head of security for Morgan Stanley Bank and died on 9/11. He is talking after the 1993 attack on the twin towers.

The last minute of the film and what he says is relevent.

And no, I don't think the sympathy is disproportionate. Especially what happened afterwards in retaliation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGXjjgMLQVs&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[naomi24]

DrFilth, true, I did question it, but at that time I didn't realise it had no relevance to the original question. Anyway, it's sorted now. :o)

[youngmafbog]

The Towers suffered a massive explosion, these big planes were loaded with fuel having just taken off. Sometimes things just dont work out the way we thought.

VHG, I guess your argument is about the Septics using Chemical weapons and now taking the opposite stance.

Well, things have moved on, if we took all things in history and carried on where would we be, for instance should we British actively condemn slavery or since we took part in it in history keep out of it?

I have to say, I am rather confused by this post and the hijacking of it that followed!

[Gromit]

After 6 minutes is the segment I would like you to see, but the who thing is worth a listen if you have 8 minutes to spare.