Why the US hasn't had another terror attack

Please explain why attacks don't count unless they are against the USA. Al Queda is at war with a lot of countries and governments, not just western ones. Their sole puprose is not to attack the US. On the whole they've been quite busy. I think you have a bias towards thinking the USA is the center of the world and everything everywhere always has to be about the US.

This is a statement you robotically repeat because conspiracy websites tell you what to think. It is unbelievably ignorant for two very big reasons:

1. None of the buildings collapsed "because of fire". Nobody has ever claimed they collapsed "due to fire", this is just something that conspiracy theorists tell each other is the official story. They collapsed because they were hit by 757s/collapsing 110 storey buildings AND because of fire. Funny how you always 'forget' about the planes and the impact of the collapse on WTC 7. Or maybe you think a 200,000 pound plane travelling at 500mph and slamming into the building is not relevant? It that what happened to WTC 1 and 2 Rat, they just caught fire? Maybe you think having a 110 storey building collapse on WTC 7 is not relevant? More likely you just repeat what you are told over and over again, no matter how many times it is pointed out to you that it makes no sense.
2. By the time WTC7 collapsed, TWO STEEL FRAMED BUILDINGS HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED THAT VERY DAY. Yet you pretend to be mystified as to how anyone could have imagined WTC 7 could collapse, despite the fact that two buildings had just collapsed, despite the fact that WTC7 had suffered significant damange, was burning out of control, and numerous firefighter eyewitnesses reported that the building looked unstable. How can you explain this except by saying that you repeat what conpsiracy websites tell you what to think.

How do buildings that collapse in their own footprints damage neighboring buildings? They don't. You are a liar, and you can't even come up with new lies.

So the police are in on it now are they? Killing off their own brothers for Silverstein? Good luck with that theory Rat. And tell me, from your "experience", do collapsing buildings make booming noises? Or what exactly sort of noise to they make? What is the sound of massive structures collapsing? I'd say big booms. Can't you come up with something better than this? You've had years to work on your theories, yet they can't stand 5 seconds of logical analysis.

 

LOL! It's worthless arguing with a spook like you, Pepik. But since your arguments are so weak, I'll take the minimal effort that is needed and waste my time refuting them.

First of all, if you read the FEMA report -- which I know you have a lot of trust in since it is a "trusted" establishment mouthpiece -- it says:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

So if WTC-7 collapsed because of the towers falling on it (as you claim), why is it not mentioned anywhere in your trusty FEMA report? Why is FIRE listed as the "best hypothesis" for causing the collapse? Why do I not see anything in the report about structural damage?

It's rather funny that WTC-7 collapsed because, according to you, it was hit by debris from the towers. Yet, it was further away from the towers than other buildings such as Bankers Trust, which didn't collapse. That's because Bankers Trust wasn't owned by Larry Silverstein, who purchased a $3.2 billion dollar lease on the WTC complex just six months before the attacks.

The towers did not fall ON WTC-7, but AROUND it.

The only person who is repeating a chorus line is YOU!

As far as the damage to neighboring buildings caused by WTC-7, this would be expected with ANY controlled demolition in such a dense area, because you cannot control where the debris goes once it hits the ground. This is common sense. And all a person needs to do is look at the WTC-7 rubble to see that it fell nearly perfectly on to its footprint, with the outer walls neatly covering the pile as would be expected with any implosion.



And the thing about the cops isn't going to work. I am sure some people who were there might have had some idea about what was going to happen, but they might have been told to shut up or were not really aware of the whole situation, other than for that the building was about to collapse. But to say it was about to "blow up" is still pretty odd phrasing for a building collapse.

 

What about the anthrax, and the snipers that terrorized the east coast in 2002? Weren't these terrorist attacks? I'll drop my doubts on the Queen's plane crash, because no one else seems to share my doubts.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/12/newyork.crash/

 

But where did the anthrax come from, Gardener? I thought we went over this already.

 

So you would like to say that all these assauts on US terriority were not terrorist caused, but insider caused? Sorry, but if I allow my country to wage a war on terrorism, I say any assault to citizens in this country should be considered as an attack. Anthrax, east coast sniper, Queen's plane crash, Twin Towers, either they are all terrorist assaults, or none of them are. And I am beginning to think that defective Chinese goods should be considered as such also.

 

I don't answer "have you stopped beating your wife" type questions.

The minimum effort would be to dodge my points completely, which is what you have done for many of them. Or are you still claiming WTC 1 and 2 collapsed "due to fire" and 200,000 pound planes travelling at 500mph+ had nothing to do with it? Oh poor Rat, you were hoping I wouldn't notice weren't you?

You haven't read the FEMA report. You only quote the part of it that conspiracy websites spoon feed to you. That's why you quote it even though it contradicts you. Fire and damage caused the WTC 7 to collapse - obviously it wasn't damage from WTC 1 alone, since it stood for several hours after the WTC impacted it. FEMA is not convinced that diesel oil could have fueled fires hot enough to cause a collapse - they aren't sure what exactly the collapse mechanism was, which is why they called it a preliminary report and kept working. They are real scientists, they can't just make things up like the clowns the conspiracy theorists believe.

I didn't claim that, I said fire and damage. Stop lying.

It is mentioned in the report that the collapse damaged the building, and that this needs further study. More proof you didn't read the report, as if we needed it.

This refers to whether fuel from the generators would been the cause of fires to burn hot and long enough to cause a collapse.

Because you didn't read it. They say there was damage, they say this needs further study, and they say this may have cause ruptures of fuel tanks which fed the fires. Its not a long report, had you actually read it you would have seen these things.

Again, that's not what I said. Stop lying.

What's important is which direction it fell, not what building was closest. This is obvious, stop repeating and start thinking.

Utter bollocks, stop making things up. Around it? Not according to eyewitness. Not according to photos. The debris was was set WT7 on fire.

Buildings which collapse into their own footprint don't damage neighboring buildings across the street. That is an absurd statement.

As opposed to a building which suffered massive structural failure on a lower floor, which collapse how? Tell us Rat, using your structural engineering expertise.

All of this is evasion though. If the building wasn't damaged by WTC 1, which did so many eyewitnesses say it was? Why did it catch fire? If the firefighters said it was heavily damaged, burning out of control, and LOOKED UNSTABLE, were they all lying? Are the firefighers all in on it?

You can't answer that and you never will. You just reach into the grab bag of miscellaneous conspiracy garbage and fling more things into the thread.

 

Thanks for dropping the "what's you agenda/vested interest" thing, it wasn't cool.

Why hasn't there been another attack ON AMERICA (who cares about the rest of the world)? Like I said, Al Queda hss been busy elsewhere. There network probably wasn't that strong in America. It has obviously been severely disrupted worldwide by the actions of the US, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other governments. Furthermore, the second attack is always going to be a lot harder given increased vigilance. Finally, America has come to them. Why would a Pakistan/Afghanistan based terror group need to go to America when American troops are on their doorstep?

Now can you explain why you think the firefighters were in on the WTC demolition?

 

I am for that!

 

Why go to your enemy when your enemy comes to you? Isn't Al Queda creating terror in Iraq?

You seem to think America is the only enemy of Al Queda. Says who? Its not only western governments, Middle Eastern governments are the enemy of Al Queda too.

No, its not all about America.

 

Yes

Yes although do you really object to the invasion of Afghanistan? That brought us to them too.

Yes.

But your Iran theory doesn't hold water. Iran doesn't control Al Queda, I doubt they are even that close. And Osama's son was released by Iran over a year ago. So there's no "hostage".

 

well most of the things that end up biting us in the ass seem to be originally funded by the US.

Like the Talibin in the late 70s and Sadam in the 80s.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10394342. And your source that he didn't leave is what?

All of these reports are extremely speculative and unreliable. "Intelligence sources say" means "intelligence sources want to spread the story that...". There's no real proof that he was there, and there's no real proof that he's left. Iran says he never was. Who knows?

The real point is that I don't see any evidence that Iran is sympathetic to Al Queda, much less that they actively support them, and even less than that that they control them. Threatening Iran hasn't stopped Iran actively working to destabilise Iraq, financing war in Lebanon, and going as far as kidnapping British troops. What leverage does the US have that somehow can't stop them from doing all that yet can make them keep Al Queda from attacking us when Al Queda isn't based in Iran and doesn't rely on them for funding?

It is spelled Taliban, they formed in the 1990s, and the US never financed them.

 

Bush ans Cheney haven't had the time to plan another attack

 

They were created and financed in the late 70s, as an opposition to the soviet occupation of Afghanistan.