Asymmetric warfare?

[KingMob]

3 gitmo detainess top themselves; "act of war" says camp commander.

They are smart. They are creative, they are committed," he said.

"They have no regard for life, either ours or their own. I believe this was not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5068606.stm

Certainly a novel spin on hanging yourself in a jail...is suicide a protest first, act of despair last? If it is a protest, can it really be classed as an act of war?

[Guest]

I always thought asymmetric warfare was when one side had conventional weaponry (spears, etc.) and the other side had modern weaponry (rifles, etc.) but were fewer in number.

Oh, and were actively engaged in warring with each other.

[Professor Smooth]

That is the biggest crock of **** I've ever heard. This is an Iraqi Information Minister-type crock!

[Best First]

man, at least we got rid of that godlles immoral communism huh?

we showed them! In your face Ruskies, we have the moral high ground and its defended with nukes.

**** yeah.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Dont ppl commit suicide in jails all over the western world everyday tho? I expect the number is quite high.

And whilst that makes light of thier death - its not an unusuall thing to happen in jail.

[Best First]

i don't think anyone is saying its unusaul for it to happen in a Jail.

i think the issue is that their suicides are being branded as an act of war by the guy who, you know, is responsible for them.

of course most people in Jails actually got sent their by, hmm, justice systems.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Yeah not sure how its an 'act of war' to be honest thats a bit of an odd one, I cant see sense in that no matter which way I hold the page.

[spiderfrommars]

Wasn't one of them about to released with charges dropped?

[Scraplet]

They are smart. They are creative, they are committed

If we believe everything else then he's not wrong. Lets see, they can;

-make Boeings 747's act like missiles
-make Boeing 747's invisible to radar over american airspace for over an hour
-cause steel at the base of towers to melt when you crash a plane into them near the top.
-avaid the intelligence networks, even though the same networks control and fund your other activities (amazing!)
-cause builings to implode and fold into their own footprint with no apparent resistance from its own structure, using a single asymetrical impact.
-vaporise steel-framed buildings with fire.

Therefore, the suicides must mark their move into spiritual warfare; they are coming for our very souls.

If only they had Identity Cards we could have stopped this sort of thing......

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I dont belive the 9/11 points to be honest - ive seen many a show based on 9/11 and read many a report regarding the different icidents. generally the conspiracy theroies just dont work when questioned.

For example vapoise steel framed buildings - the intial explosion was enough to remove 5 floors. the resulting fire I know from my physics and materials lectures on science would be more then enough to melt the steel frame.
Once the top of the building falls its more then enough to crush the building below and cause a chain reaction that will compund the base.

Seriously, you can ignore any other ideas about how these buildings fell down. They are baseless ideas with no science to back them up.

Intelligence Networks do work with other groups but that doesnt mean they work with the groups who took part in 9/11 - there are 1000's of groupd worldwide to put them in one big basket is daft.

the planes were not invisible - they were being tracked but the threat was not recorgnaised. hind-sight.

As for the missle into the Pentagon - bull, the explosion at the Pentagon has all the hall marks of a fuel explosion, and a crusie missle could not carry enough air-fuel to duplicate it.

Plus, if terroists can fly planes into buildings why cant they fly them into the Pentagon?

In short, what happened, happened - the reason it happened is because the USA underestimated the terroist cells ablity to cause such havok on USA soil - to think its all a mass consipracy to me is to commit the same folly again.

[Best First]

actually i think its fairer to say that it happened because the Bush administration massivley ignored the intelligence handed over to them by the Clinto n administration on Al Qiada.

Imnot some crazy Clinton lover but he and his administration were very ficussed on the AQ situation and saw an imminent threat, the Bush administartion conversley ignored this until it was too late.

[Scraplet]

Impy, your points deserve more time than I have right now, but I will be back.

Suffice to say, I disgree with your assessment. And much of it I don't see as a conspircy theory. There are a number of valid questions that were not answered. And many of your points just raise more questions.

Oh, and I don't say things like that unless they are grounded. There is MUCH science in those points. I'd love to know which Phyics textbook told you an unaided hydrocarbon fire is capable of melting (not weakening -MELTING) steel, though.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

just quickly.

BF I agree, the reason the USA was attacked and why it was allowed to happen are two different points and I was trying to explain why the event was allowed to take place rather then the motive behind them.

As for air fuel burning steel - http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm
His maths is correct and its a good exmaple to use but he fails to factor in so many vairables.

For starters he just summerises very early on that only 1 floor is on fire. nice, because if it were two floors his experiment is quickly going out the window.

Second he failts to factor in that the air fuel has created a fire - the air fuel itself might not be enough to burn the steel but it has ignited the rest of the building - this alone is creating yet more heat/Energy that isnt being accounted for.

What about air? he just assumes the building is a box filled with air, what about the wind at that hieght fanning the flames? - Ive been up the trade towers and when u step out of the lift the updraft through the gap in the lift-shaft is nutty!

Anyhows, the fire isnt the key, its a factor. The buildings frame has just been hit by a big plane a pressure explosion.
Yes he failts to caluclate the resultant force of the explosion with the area of space it takes place in - this is a bomb, yes there will be fire but lets not underestimate it.

How much damage is done to the steel frame now? how much of the steel frame has been weakened to a stress point? how much is about to reach its plastic limit?
Whilst the fire alone is not enough - was it enough to tip it over the edge, once a few girders go that huge weight of the above floors will be enough to crush the buidling.

- Ive just watched some footage again, when the first tower falls it clearly breaks at the plane imapct point... unfortuantly I just watched footage of a man on the phone talking the FDP and he screams as it falls...which was enough to make me almost vomit.

So ill be leaving this alone for a while, as its suddenly distressed me again.

[Best First]

just quickly.

BF I agree, the reason the USA was attacked and why it was allowed to happen are two different points and I was trying to explain why the event was allowed to take place rather then the motive behind them.

i don't mention motive once though?

you said

In short, what happened, happened - the reason it happened is because the USA underestimated the terroist cells ablity to cause such havok on USA soil

i just think that statement shouldeb modified to apply to the current administartion because they specifically ignored good intel on this.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Aye: the current Adminsitration ignored the previous Intel they had on AQ.

I wonder if this is a common thing in US plotics, Information gained when one party is in power is dismissed by the other when it enters power?

From a CIA perspective u can have one guy working there under lots of different adminstrations - yet his information doesnt change.

I understand that AQ was know about and that information was available on them but did the CIA honestly know that the attacks were going to take place - I mean im sure there is lodas of info pointing to an 'immenent terroist threat' its surely a tough a job of trying to work out whats real and what isnt?
And I think with 9/11 what to take seriously and who not to underestimate.

What a strange worl we live in since 9/11 I was thinking, untill then I dont think I really knew much about Muslim culture...

[Best First]

as i understand it the Clinton administartion basically ahd a plan to take out AQ and set up a more focussed terrorism task force, this plan was passed to the new administration and it was stressed that this was pretty super important, it was then more or less shelved until after the attacks.

so, no garuntees of preventing the attacks but a much better chnace.

[Brendocon]

I always thought asymmetric warfare was when one side had conventional weaponry (spears, etc.) and the other side had modern weaponry (rifles, etc.) but were fewer in number.

Well, convincing the other side to kill themself for you could be regarded as asymmetrical... unless they can convince your own lot to kill themselves, too...

... I have no ******* clue what that thought is meant to be...

[Guest]

I'd love to know which Phyics textbook told you an unaided hydrocarbon fire is capable of melting (not weakening -MELTING) steel, though.

It seemed to be pretty much evident during the London Blitz of World War II.

Not to mention other cities, including my local one, Bristol, where the excavations found what was thought to be an unexploded bomb, last week, but was actually steel-reinforced concrete from a bombed building, and the metal suffered from hydrocarbon melting. I'd imagine they also dug up some melted steel from the surrounds.

Also, given enough of a duration, I could melt steel with a simple cigarette lighter. The Physics is simply a matter of the transferance of Heat energy from one body to another with the target gaining enough internal energy to overcome its intermolecular bonding with the effect of its external shape changing.

[Scraplet]

I will spend some time on a proper reply soon, honest!

A hydrocarbon fire, under perfect circumstances (like your gas stove or a bunsen burner with no air turbulance) doesn't tend to get much hotter than 1000c

You need to get to about 1500c before you start to affect steel.

Explosives, on the other hand. They can achieve temperatures plenty hot enough to melt steel. Thats why you need them to demolish steel-framed buildings. Otherwise demolition firms could just set fire to them and let them fall down. I would imagine that the incenduary devices of the WWII might have achieved that if the fires that persisted were also chemically assisted, but I'm just guessing there

[Impactor returns 2.0]

They used to use phosphur bombs to set fire and to finnaly burn stuff down in WW2 bombings over London.

Ive looked around and most of the conspiracy theroies (unless anyone can show me different) I can see house experiments that whilst are acurrate are small experiments.

They dont account for everything going, they are more akin to closed experiments.

For example most claim the Jet fuel will not burn and melt steel - If I perform a petri-dish sized experiment then probably not directly no, and if i increase the size of the experiment at scale of steel and Jet fuel then again perhaps not.

But the WTC was not just Jet fuel and Steel, the events are far more complex - an explosion, a fire and stress.
The resulting fire could have been hotter due to the enviroment, this requires some complex maths depending the layout of WTC offices, ALL the materials in WTC - lets be clear here, theres not just steel in the WTC, a fire can be stoked to some incredbile temperatures via the wind and all the other mterials inside the building will all add heat energy. Like i say the maths are getting incredibly complex but im going to hazzard a guess that the temperature will be enough to cause stress problems to the WTC.

When the first tower colapses, and for me this is just obvious, the tower clearly gives way at the point of impact - its fair to say this is a stress point . How anything else can be considered now is beyond me.

I just cant honestly belive anything else took place - a big hole is ripped in the side of a building, thats enough to topple it - the fire will just to instablity, fire alone doesnt drop the building and this is where most conspiracy theroies go wrong, they gut humg up on this whole fire issue, its not the wholse story, its just part of it.

[Scraplet]

The twin towers and building 7 all collasped in a manner that displays all the hallmarks of a controlled demolition.
The south tower does indeed topple from above the impact point. This is what you would expect - there is resistance from the (relativly) undamaged areas of the building. (BTW this section also disintgrates - why?)

The building then crumbles (quite literally) to dust at FREEFALL speeds. No resistance from the intact parts of the building. Most the girders are reduced to regular sized pieces. It collapes into it footprint. These are halmarkes of controlled demolition.

The official report blames fire for weakening the structure enough to allow the 'pancake' effect.

The pancake effect has only ever been observed in partial collapses before. The buildings resist collapse where they are undamaged or untouched by fire.

Where it has been observed, it is usually after prollonged (many hours /days) of fire at very hot temperatures.

There is very little evidence of many high temp fires at the WTC.

Much of the aviation fuel was observed 'fireballing' on impact and there are varified reports of fire officers 'ankle deep' in avaiation fuel at the base of the towers.

The thick black smoke in indicative of low temperature combustion. Minutues after the impacts there are living people obsered peering through the holes left by the aircraft - idicative of bearable/survival temperatures after the inital fireball (which I have read was likely 800c)

Building 7 is the most contreveratial to me - it was a convential steel framed skyscraper. But, as it stradled the main electricity substation for that part of the city, it had some of the most massive steel beams of any similar structure in the world. It burned for a few hours, then collapsed entirley - this was a conventional steel framed building.

Find some footage on the net. You will observe the roof collapse inward first. There is no resistance - freefall speeds. More contrevertially, some people points out puffs of smoke that slightly preceed the speed of the fall floor by floor. This is indicative of demolition too - but I'm not sure thats what I see when I watch it. (BTW some people claim you can see a similar thing in the twin towers themselves). It fall inward on its footprint. Steel framed buildings don't do this. Without controlled demolition, anyway.

The offical report ignores this and says something like "we don't know how the fire caused this to happen". Why didn't they look at other alternatives? There is plenty of evidence that the investigation was poor, illfunded and rushed. Why? The clean-up started before the investigation had gathered evidence. Why?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

Sorry but alot of this is really what I call consipiracy theory science with no realy thought applied.

Whats going on here is each thing is being looked at as a singular incident and not as a whole series of incidents.

Lets go back to the air fuel for instance - can a wood fire burn steel? - no.
How does a kilm work then? they burned steel in the dark ages - how?

A classic example of how the experiments used by Conspirists think they understand physics.

If its so hot then why are ppl seen at windows - again, presumption that the experiment is controlled - the WTC is loads of offices - I can stand next a kilm, it doesnt burn me but its hot enough to melt steel...

As for evidence of hot temperatures? - well no, I dont expect anyone was in there making a report but ill pur alod of air fuel into a stone kilm and we will observea tempture far hotter then its base temperature.

Thick black smoke - Again this is daft now, u have a fire, the black smoke is from all the other things burning, carpets paper, pens, chairs, plastic wall covers, essentially everything inside. this is simple stuff.

Building 7 - again, the thinking is all wrong. Building 7 is not just a small experiment, once the trade towers have fallen, what else do u think has happened? 9.81 million Newtons of force just hit the floor next door!!!
Now if I dropped that next to a building, guess what, its probably unstable!

Roof colapse - again, the building is a steel frame, if i pull the frame at the break point, its like a bit of string, the top moves as the bottom moves. and of course there will be puffs of smoke, the plaster just compressed!

Im sorry but I dont see anything other conspiracy theories - It looks exactly how it looks to me. Im pretty sure I can explain anything you see - and to me the towers collapse exactly how I would think they would.
Bang-fire-melt-collapse.

Whats the end point here - Bush orders the WTC and the pentagon to be hit by planes and then blown up aswell?

Its like the Pentagon theroies - A rocket hit it! FFS thats so dumb its untrue, why send a guided missle into the building when u can just hit it with a plane, and if it fails put bombs inside the building!!! its alot easier and u dont need to use a missle ffs!

All this cods wallop about when bush is told and he doesnt react - what do u expect him to do, jump up and scream in a class of kids? he looks shocked, and is probably gathering his thoughts, I would be, sure he doesnt ride in like a heroic president but its not the movies.
I dont like Bush but I dont belive this is anything other the exactly what it is, Terroists blew alot of stuff up using an obvious method.