Cyprus-Forum.com

[Mapko]

Paphitis...China will always have business with the West because it is extremely cheap labour. It has taken over Pakistan/India as the place to get machinists running off two million Nike shirts a day for $2 per hundred thousand. I have a friend who lives in New Zealand and he tells me there are loads of Chinese/Japanese who come over to your shores to live, but that would still happen.

At the end of the day, there is no bigger business than war.

[Paphitis]

Paphitis...China will always have business with the West because it is extremely cheap labour. It has taken over Pakistan/India as the place to get machinists running off two million Nike shirts a day for $2 per hundred thousand. I have a friend who lives in New Zealand and he tells me there are loads of Chinese/Japanese who come over to your shores to live, but that would still happen.

At the end of the day, there is no bigger business than war.

No I don't think China is silly enough to wage war against the West!

They need us more than we need them, because even without China, we can move our investments over to India. Sure, our economy will suffer, but China would be in no man's land without the West!

It is China that keeps North korea in check, but if North Korea went crazy, then China will abandon them. They will never abandon their financial well being for the sake of a crazy regime in North Korea. And the allies won't abandon South Korea, and China knows this!

Without Australian Resources, China wouldn't last very long in any war.

[supporttheunderdog]

One very simple example; if the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757, where are the engines? No matter how severe the crash the engines, being such a large mass, always survive. They may not look like engines anymore but, what was there before impact was still there after impact!

These sites may be of interest to you

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/turbofans.html

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/co ... 0265.shtml

The second in particular dismisses on quite rational grounds some of the alternative types of engine used in supposed alternative plane/missiles.

On the limited amount of damage to the Pentagon compared to WTC (including WTC 7) the answer lies in the very very different design and construction of the WTC buildings, including WT7, known as a "tube in a tube" with very little to none intermedoate supports between the inner and outer tubes and the Pentagon which is a low-rise reinforced concrete structure with plenty of quite closely spaced pillars,

Your final paragraph is full of errors and obvious misunderstandings of the system. Washington is a very restricted air space. Any aircraft entering the area without a specific clearance would be subject to interception within minutes, that’s what NORAD is for. NORAD sat on the hijacking scenarios going on around them, for twenty minutes before they took action. Nobody it seems was available to make the decisions............ and when they eventually got their act together, they sent the two scrambled aircraft out to sea.

They also scrambled aircraft from an airfield 180 miles to the north, in spite of having (I believe) two military ‘on stand by’ fields within 12m, although both had been ‘stood down’. However, there seems to have been a lot of bewilderment in NORAD as there were exercises going on at the same time, simulating hijacked aircraft attacking targets in New York and Washington. So I suppose it would come as no surprise that there was a great deal of confusion. Listen to the ATC/NORAD transcripts....... the common question asked was ‘Is this for real or a drill?’ and not just once but virtually every bit of information being given was questioned as to it’s authenticity.

I know Wikepedia is frownd upon as being open- source but the following is quite informative and probably just as valid a source as any other internet site, which are usually the private domain of the site owners and not subject to any form of review of the objectivity of the commentator,

Wikpeadia also has references to source material..

Air Defense Stand Down Theory

A common claim is that the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) issued a stand down order or deliberately scrambled fighters late to allow the hijacked airplanes to reach their targets without interference. According to this theory, NORAD had the capability of locating and intercepting planes on 9/11, and its failure to do so indicates a government conspiracy to allow the attacks to occur.[67] The Web site emperors-clothes.com argues that the U.S. military failed to do their job. StandDown.net's Mark R. Elsis says "There is only one explanation for this.... Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."[70][71]

In September 2001, NORAD generals said they learned of the hijackings in time to scramble fighter jets. Later, the U.S. government released tapes claiming to show the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) did not tell the military about the hijackings until three of the four planes had crashed, a fact that would indicate that the FAA repeatedly lied to other U.S. government agencies.[72]

Phil Molé of Skeptic magazine has explained that it is neither quick nor easy to locate and intercept a plane behaving erratically, and that the hijackers turned off or disabled the onboard radar transponders. Without these transponder signals to identify the airplanes, the hijacked airplanes would have been only blips among 4,500 other blips on NORAD’S radar screens, making them very difficult to track.[67][70]

According to Popular Mechanics, only 14 fighter jets were on alert in the contiguous 48 states on 9/11. There was no automated method for the civilian air traffic controllers to alert NORAD.[70] A passenger airline hadn't been hijacked in the US since 1979.[73] "They had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. According to Popular Mechanics, only one civilian plane was intercepted in the decade prior to 9/11, which took 1 hour and 22 minutes.[70]

Rules in effect at that time, and on 9/11, barred supersonic flight on intercepts. Before 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," says FAA spokesman Bill Schumann. After 9/11, the FAA and NORAD increased cooperation. They set up hotlines between command centers while NORAD increased its fighter coverage and installed radar to watch airspace over the continent.[70]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

This indicates that US airspace was not so monitored by NORAD in 2001

Thank you too for the constructive nature of the debate.

[Daniella]

Paphitis...China will always have business with the West because it is extremely cheap labour. It has taken over Pakistan/India as the place to get machinists running off two million Nike shirts a day for $2 per hundred thousand. I have a friend who lives in New Zealand and he tells me there are loads of Chinese/Japanese who come over to your shores to live, but that would still happen.

At the end of the day, there is no bigger business than war.

No I don't think China is silly enough to wage war against the West!
They need us more than we need them, because even without China, we can move our investments over to India. Sure, our economy will suffer, but China would be in no man's land without the West!

It is China that keeps North korea in check, but if North Korea went crazy, then China will abandon them. They will never abandon their financial well being for the sake of a crazy regime in North Korea. And the allies won't abandon South Korea, and China knows this!

Without Australian Resources, China wouldn't last very long in any war.

aghapi mou, it is the opposite
USA are scared of an economic alliance between middle east countries and china (im talking of oil pipelines )

[Paphitis]

Paphitis...China will always have business with the West because it is extremely cheap labour. It has taken over Pakistan/India as the place to get machinists running off two million Nike shirts a day for $2 per hundred thousand. I have a friend who lives in New Zealand and he tells me there are loads of Chinese/Japanese who come over to your shores to live, but that would still happen.

At the end of the day, there is no bigger business than war.

No I don't think China is silly enough to wage war against the West!
They need us more than we need them, because even without China, we can move our investments over to India. Sure, our economy will suffer, but China would be in no man's land without the West!

It is China that keeps North korea in check, but if North Korea went crazy, then China will abandon them. They will never abandon their financial well being for the sake of a crazy regime in North Korea. And the allies won't abandon South Korea, and China knows this!

Without Australian Resources, China wouldn't last very long in any war.

aghapi mou, it is the opposite
USA are scared of an economic alliance between middle east countries and china (im talking of oil pipelines )

Aghapi mou ,

China already has a massive economic alliance with the US, and Australia. Yes, we are all dependant on oil from the Middle East, but China is not only heavily dependent on oil, but is also extremely dependent on Australian resources and raw materials and is pretty much our most prolific manufacturing base.

Apparently, a Free Trade agreement is also under negotiation.

So there won't be any wars between China and the West anytime soon.

[yialousa1971]

Tom Sullivan - Explosives Loader


AE911Truth's EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW!
Tom Sullivan - Former Explosives Loader for Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI)

This interview is some raw footage of one of the world class experts appearing in Architects and Engineer's upcoming hard hitting documentary
"9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"




9/11: EXPLOSIVE TESTIMONY EXCLUSIVE Mark Basile Chemical Engineer.m4v

AE911Truth's EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW!
Chemical Engineer Mark Basile - One of the scientists who found thermite
in the World Trade Center dust discusses in depth his process of discovery
using the scientific method.
This interview is some raw footage of one of the world class experts appearing in Architects and Engineer's upcoming hard hitting documentary
"9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"



Les Young (High-rise Architect) - "9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out" (AE911TRUTH)

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW!

Architect Les Young

This interview is some raw footage of one of the world class experts appearing in architects and engineer's upcoming hard hitting documentary "9/11:Explosive Evidence - Experts speak out"

[yialousa1971]

Paphitis...China will always have business with the West because it is extremely cheap labour. It has taken over Pakistan/India as the place to get machinists running off two million Nike shirts a day for $2 per hundred thousand. I have a friend who lives in New Zealand and he tells me there are loads of Chinese/Japanese who come over to your shores to live, but that would still happen.

At the end of the day, there is no bigger business than war.

No I don't think China is silly enough to wage war against the West!
They need us more than we need them, because even without China, we can move our investments over to India. Sure, our economy will suffer, but China would be in no man's land without the West!

It is China that keeps North korea in check, but if North Korea went crazy, then China will abandon them. They will never abandon their financial well being for the sake of a crazy regime in North Korea. And the allies won't abandon South Korea, and China knows this!

Without Australian Resources, China wouldn't last very long in any war.

aghapi mou, it is the opposite
USA are scared of an economic alliance between middle east countries and china (im talking of oil pipelines )

Aghapi mou ,

China already has a massive economic alliance with the US, and Australia. Yes, we are all dependant on oil from the Middle East, but China is not only heavily dependent on oil, but is also extremely dependent on Australian resources and raw materials and is pretty much our most prolific manufacturing base.

Apparently, a Free Trade agreement is also under negotiation.

So there won't be any wars between China and the West anytime soon.

Stick to the thread, don't go off topic like the Jew Jon Faine.

Aussie Trades Unionist Exposes 9/11 Cover-up

[Robin Hood]

Supporttheunderdog

Thank you for the links, I did watch/read them. Very interesting all of it, but it leads me to ask just a couple of questions:

• The fan rotor that is shown I would say, on the evidence, is undoubtedly from an RB -211 but why did all the blades drop out of the ‘dovetails’? I think I am right in saying that these things are ‘fixed’ (factory fitted) into the dovetail by shrinking the blades by reducing the temperature or alternatively heating the rotor. You could not hammer them out if you tried! I would have expected them to snap off at the root, not just drop out; especially all of them. They must have been going virtually flat out upon impact as the throttles were at maximum (See NTSB Video of the Flight Data Recording). If you look at other parts of the compressor section they ARE snapped off.

• The aircraft was travelling at around 600mph and hit a masonry/reinforced concrete wall, with a few tonnes of engine behind it, so I find the lack of damage to the rotor very surprising. Even the cone, which is an aluminium pressing/casting (?) is still visible, although damaged. I would have thought the fan rotor would either shatter on impact or be squashed into the engine and almost unrecognisable as a rotor except by an expert on aero engines.

There are so many unexplained aspects of 911 that need to be examined about all four aircraft involved and it needs to be bought out into the open. I find the events of that day a fascinating subject and I am sure that one day what actually happened will eventually come out.

Yialousa1971

Again, thanks for posting those videos. There is not much to say after that? Those that believe the official story, (which in itself is a conspiracy theory) are really all denying scientific and engineering fact and living in a world of illusion.

What I like about the Sullivan/Basile/Young explanations is that firstly they are all professionals and stick to proven fact not speculation. Secondly, that they do not make any attempt to explain anything other than the simple and obvious observation that the official explanation of what we saw is questionable and should be the subject of a fair, open and independent investigation not wild accusations as to a conspiracy.

The interview by Faine was an insult to his profession and to Kevin Bracken but showed exactly the attitude of many of those that refuse to believe that the explanation by the US Administration was seriously flawed, to put it mildly. They continually try to ridicule the messenger that believes something different to the media presentations and the US Official Explanation.


One question that has always puzzled me is that of the twin towers and WTC7.

I believe (and this is pure speculation on my part) that the reason WTC7 had to be ‘pulled’ shortly after the North and South Towers came down was that flight #93 was supposed to have impacted WTC7, but never made it to the target! If, as would now seem feasible it was a controlled demolition and WTC7 collapsed even though there was no impact, something happened to Flt#93 to prevent it turning back to New York! When you look at the flight path it was a straight line, due west from the departure point and it was heading for the Great Lakes. We are then lead to believe it did an almost 180 deg. turn whilst at the same time the ‘pilot’ was fighting off a bunch of extremely irate passengers and then it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.

Even the impact evidence was questionable if you have seen the grass growing around the rather small impact crater and the fact that an investigation found no evidence of Jet fuel (Kerosene) on the site of the crash. Compare it with the Lockerbie impact crater!

The theorists have already come up with missiles and the aircraft being shot down but, I have never seen any questioning as to why, unlike the other flights, Flt#93 was basically going nowhere. Whatever the intended target, it was not going to be too far to the west of New York.

I ask the speculative question ‘Were all four aircraft remotely controlled and that communication was lost with Flt#93?’

One reason for asking is that the FDR for Flt#77 showed that the flight deck door had not been opened after it departed and this parameter is scanned every four seconds. Also another aspect is that modern aircraft are flow through computers and if a hacker can hack into a US Government computer, then surely it is not beyond feasibility that the computers on these aircraft had in some way been 'modified' .... it may even be that the computers on all aircraft have this capability hidden somewhere in the triplicated software?

Just a thought.

[yialousa1971]

Supporttheunderdog



Yialousa1971

Again, thanks for posting those videos. There is not much to say after that? Those that believe the official story, (which in itself is a conspiracy theory) are really all denying scientific and engineering fact and living in a world of illusion.

What I like about the Sullivan/Basile/Young explanations is that firstly they are all professionals and stick to proven fact not speculation. Secondly, that they do not make any attempt to explain anything other than the simple and obvious observation that the official explanation of what we saw is questionable and should be the subject of a fair, open and independent investigation not wild accusations as to a conspiracy.

The interview by Faine was an insult to his profession and to Kevin Bracken but showed exactly the attitude of many of those that refuse to believe that the explanation by the US Administration was seriously flawed, to put it mildly. They continually try to ridicule the messenger that believes something different to the media presentations and the US Official Explanation.


One question that has always puzzled me is that of the twin towers and WTC7.

I believe (and this is pure speculation on my part) that the reason WTC7 had to be ‘pulled’ shortly after the North and South Towers came down was that flight #93 was supposed to have impacted WTC7, but never made it to the target! If, as would now seem feasible it was a controlled demolition and WTC7 collapsed even though there was no impact, something happened to Flt#93 to prevent it turning back to New York! When you look at the flight path it was a straight line, due west from the departure point and it was heading for the Great Lakes. We are then lead to believe it did an almost 180 deg. turn whilst at the same time the ‘pilot’ was fighting off a bunch of extremely irate passengers and then it crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.

Even the impact evidence was questionable if you have seen the grass growing around the rather small impact crater and the fact that an investigation found no evidence of Jet fuel (Kerosene) on the site of the crash. Compare it with the Lockerbie impact crater!

The theorists have already come up with missiles and the aircraft being shot down but, I have never seen any questioning as to why, unlike the other flights, Flt#93 was basically going nowhere. Whatever the intended target, it was not going to be too far to the west of New York.

I ask the speculative question ‘Were all four aircraft remotely controlled and that communication was lost with Flt#93?’

One reason for asking is that the FDR for Flt#77 showed that the flight deck door had not been opened after it departed and this parameter is scanned every four seconds. Also another aspect is that modern aircraft are flow through computers and if a hacker can hack into a US Government computer, then surely it is not beyond feasibility that the computers on these aircraft had in some way been 'modified' .... it may even be that the computers on all aircraft have this capability hidden somewhere in the triplicated software?

Just a thought.

WTC7 command centre for the attack on WTC 1 and 2?

WTC Building 7 – on its 23rd floor – housed an Emergency Command Center for the City of New York that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had built in the mid-1990’s. On the morning of September 11th, Mayor Giuliani did not go “to his Command Center – with its clear view of the Twin Towers – but to a makeshift, street-level headquarters at 75 Barkley Street.” WTC 7 also held the offices of numerous government agencies, including the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Security and Exchange Commission.5 Late 2001 was the time of “the height of the investigation into Enron, so the majority of Enron’s SEC filings were likely destroyed when World Trade Center 7 came down.”

[Robin Hood]

It appears that there have been a lot of people gagged, over the events at the World Trade Centre on 9-11-01. I thought the following might be of interest. Mainly discussing WT7 which was never even part of the 9-11 Commission Report, there is ever increasing scepticism and far more evidence to support the ‘controlled demolition’ hypothesis, certainly for WTC7 but also the Twin Towers.

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/05/permission-to-speak-freely-regarding.html

This is a couple of videos I found interesting. Prof. Graeme MacQueen approaches the subject from a common sense angle and also asks why the observations at the time of the incident, of over 500 first hand witnesses were never considered in the 9-11 Commission Report. Many of these were fire-fighters and were in the buildings prior to the collapse.


Part 1 (10 minutes) General considerations:



Part 2 (10 minutes) Focus is on firefighter's testimony about explosions. Very compelling: