Je suis Omar

In the following event in Indonesia, described by Noam Chomsky, below, the US State Department supplied their own list to death squads and then checked off names as people were killed. This is typical of the good the USA has done throughout its long sordid history. "The most important victory, in fact, was in Indonesia. In 1965 there was a military coup, which instantly carried out a Rwanda-style slaughter, and it's not an exaggeration. Rwanda-style slaughter, which wiped out the only mass-based political organization, killed mostly landless peasants, and instituted a brutal and murderous regime. There was total euphoria in the United States. So happy, they couldn't contain it. When you read the press, it was just ecstatic. It's kind of suppressed now because it doesn't look pretty in retrospect, but it was understood. Years later, McGeorge Bundy, who was the national security advisor, recognized that, he said, and I think he's right, the U.S. should have stopped the war in Vietnam in 1965, because we basically won. By 1965 South Vietnam was largely destroyed, most of the rest was going to quickly be destroyed, and we had saved the major prize, Indonesia. The rot wasn't going to spread to Indonesia after this delightful Rwanda-style slaughter." - Noam Chomsky

"The US intervened in the Philippines to "uplift and christianize" the backward people, killing a couple of hundred thousand of them and destroying the place. The same thing happened in Haiti, the same thing happened with other countries. We cannot disregard the historical record and talk about an ideal world. It makes sense to work towards a better world, but it doesn't make any sense to have illusions about what the real world is." - Noam Chomsky

A full on admission that you support war criminals, Tim. You are describing what is well known to be a war crime. This is one the USA has often used, in their typical hypocritical fashion , to condemn others when they have been throughout their history serial attackers against civilians. Did you develop this caring attitude towards the world's poor as a defence for USA war crimes and terrorism?

The easy test would be to describe some events that illustrated that the USA does good things. Checking the historical record would help.

But molten aluminum is silver. The material flowing from WTC2 was the wrong color.

That would suggest that it is impossible for the flowing molten material to be molten steel.

I didn't ask about weakened steel. Newsweek said that the intense fires melted the steel so that molten material could have been molten steel.

"The intense fires, more than the impact, caused the towers to collapse. The intense fires melted the structural steel." Newsweek Extra Edition America Under Attack Given this, it's certainly plausible that the molten metal was steel.

I think you may well be right. Doing tests to confirm hypotheses is the essence of science. Tests would have sunk NIST's boat. So they didn't do any tests. Doesn't that illustrate that the NIST investigation was fraudulent?

Thank you very much, OGFT. Could you explain why NIST didn't do tests to confirm their hypothesis?

Do you know how to copy and paste? Or write the first few words of the appropriate section?

Why are you so reluctant to share that "actual science"?

This isn't at all what we were discussing. You provided a site that stated that there was no way to determine the flow was molten aluminum. Yet you and some others feel you have the qualifications to state categorically you know what it is. Is that science to your mind?

They said they can't say for sure it's aluminum and they also state that NIST can't either. I'm guessing that your contention is that two assumptions constitute science and that then becomes your proof allowing you to state categorically that it's molten aluminum.

That is a perfect description of NIST's approach, OGFT. They kept tweaking their computer programs to meet a predetermined notion. Even then their results didn't begin to approach reality.

Your source says, "Yet, there is enough evidence to point to the glow being aluminum. (Anyone saying they KNOW what the substance is would be lying. I won't pretend to KNOW it's aluminum because I don't. The NIST doesn't say they KNOW either. They only conclude it's aluminum because it's the most likely, given the evidence.)" Are assumptions science?

Can you provide your source for this contention?

You didn't even read the article, Argus. And you pretend that you are interested in honesty. The Korean War, a.k.a. the Unknown War, was, in fact, headline news at the time it was being fought(1950-53). Given the Cold War hatreds of the combatants, though, a great deal of the reportage was propaganda, and much of what should have been told was never told. News of the worst atrocities perpetrated against civilians was routinely suppressed and the full story of the horrific suffering of the Korean peoplewho lost 3-million souls of a total population of 23-million has yet to be told in full. Filling in many of the blank spaces is Bruce Cumings, chair of the Department of History at the University of Chicago, whose book The Korean War(Modern Library Chronicles) takes an objective look at the conflict. In one review, Publishers Weekly says, In this devastating work he shows how little the U.S. knew about who it was fighting, why it was fighting, and even how it was fighting. Though the North Koreans had a reputation for viciousness, according to Cumings, U.S. soldiers actually engaged in more civilian massacres. This included dropping over half a million tons of bombs and thousands of tons of napalm, more than was loosed on the entire Pacific theater in World War II, almost indiscriminately. The review goes on to say, Cumings deftly reveals how Korea was a clear precursor to Vietnam: a divided country, fighting a long anti-colonial war with a committed and underestimated enemy; enter the U.S., efforts go poorly, disillusionment spreads among soldiers, and lies are told at top levels in an attempt to ignore or obfuscate a relentless stream of bad news. For those who like their truth unvarnished, Cumingss history will be a fresh, welcome take on events that seemed to have long been settled. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-korean-war-the-unknown-war-the-coverup-of-us-war-crimes/23742

Carepov wrote: As I mentioned, the very lens by which we are judging the West (International Law, UDHR, the UN itself...) would not exist without US leadership. ------------- Another urban fairy tale, I'm afraid, Carepov. The United States versus the World at the United Nations by William Blum America, we have all been taught for half a century, is the leader of "The Free World". If this is so, it's proper to ask: Where are the followers? Where is the evidence that Washington's world view sways the multitude of nations? To enlist support for its wars in Korea, Vietnam and in the Gulf, the United States had to resort to a lot of bribery and threats. At the United Nations, the US has, with noteworthy regularity, been on the minority side in voting on resolutions. The table below shows a portion of this pattern. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/USvsWorldUN_WBlum.html

[ name=carepov" post="1043311" timestamp="1428001987] However, you could also write volumes about American led positive deeds. In many cases, American actions were unprecedentedly good. That is simply not true, Carepov. The USA doesn't do things for altruistic reasons. Try to describe the good things the USA has done. You'll find it's not the easy task you think it is.

You state this as if the UK and the US had some right to interfere in Iranian affairs. That is the very definition of terrorism and here you are, ostensibly someone who believes in democracy, the rights of a people to decide their own futures, making apologies for terrorists. You make an excellent case that the USA should never have been allowed to seek their own destiny. (Sadly, history has confirmed that.) There was no communist threat. See the pernicious effect USA propaganda has had. That is for the Iranians to decide, not a group of rapacious liars, interested only in stealing Iranian oil wealth. That is simply gangsterism, no different than the worst of the Mafia.

Argus: Everyone who knows anything about thermite dismissed it out of hand. Which is why the 911 nuts have invented a new type of thermite which doesn't actually exist, but which they suggest COULD exist, and if it DID then it would be responsible! ---------- Dismissing something out of hand doesn't sound very scientific. Do you think such an approach is scientific? Could you tell me the name of this new type of thermite that doesn't actually exist?

Argus: Hey, here's an idea. You drop some steel girders a thousand feet, drop a billion tons of stuff on them, and let them burn for some days under all that debris. Might be a little melting there along the way... ----------- Correct me if I'm wrong, Argus, but I believe you said at the beginning of this discussion that this stuff was beyond you. How did you get yourself up to speed so quickly? Where did you get your little idea? Is it your own or is it from an outside source?

That sounds very important, very impressive, but what is the point, Michael?

Again, phantasmagorical! John Gross was a lead investigator for NIST, the body charged with investigating the collapse of the buildings. It was his job to know. So many people had said it. Here, don't watch it for yourself and see. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C0r0rWm6p0s