I wasn't making a comparision. You stated


I just showed that it has happened.

As far as comparing goes.... Show me another building of the same construction as WTC that has had a 767 hit at over 400mph and is still standing. Steel frame building collapsing because of fire ... happened. But a highrise of similar construction being hit by a 767 at that speed has never happened.

Different construction. Different incident. Different weights.

You also said "collapse". It collapsed. It was a steel framed building.



Also try watching the video. The Windsor Building in Madrid, with the top 11 floors built much as WTC. The top floors collapsed into their own footprint, ie: the floors that had a concrete core.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MRSr1MnFuk

k. Forget the concrete though as that wasn't part of the construction used. Also I get to knock off the spray on retardant with a hammer as would have happened with a hit from a plane.


Remember now. I want that in Canadian funds please.



The complete collapse of the Twin Towers has more to do with the construction than anything else. Yes, it was the loss of fireproofing and subsequent fires that collapsed the building but if it were not for the construction, a total collapse may not have occurred. Ironically, the construction also saved many lives by letting the towers stand as long as they did. These pages explain the construction and provide evidence for collapse by fire.

"Tube in a Tube"

The designers coined the term "Tube in a Tube" to describe the buildings’ construction. The design was an innovation of its day. Thick steel columns ran up the middle of the building. This housed the elevators, stairwell, electrical conduits, water, sewer and other services which ran up and down the length of the buildings.

For you to understand the collapse, you will have to remember four main elements.

* Core columns
* Perimeter columns
* Floor Trusses
* Fire proofing

The columns of the building normally found evenly spaced out on a given floor became the outer wall of the building. This left large open areas for renting. A good explanation of this can be found on PBS.

Instead of encasing each column in heavy concrete, (normal fire proofing) the designers relied on 'sprayed on' fire proofing with a 2 hour rating to protect the load bearing columns and trusses from fire.

The world's largest office building, the Pentagon is synonymous with the Department of Defense and a symbol of American military might.

Exactly 60 years before the September 2001 attacks, on September 11, 1941, ground was broken in Arlington Country, Virginia, for a huge new building to house the War Department, forerunner of today's Department of Defense. The department was then operating from 17 separate buildings in Washington.

Pearl Harbor Alters Plans

At certain periods 13,000 people worked on the project. Originally, plans called for three floors, but as the military prepared for war after the attack on Pearl Harbor, two more floors were added. To conserve steel, concrete ramps were used in place of elevators and the outside walls were made of reinforced concrete.

The Pentagon was built in "stripped classical" style, a variation of Greek and Roman classicism popular in the middle of the 20th century and often used for government buildings.

On January 15, 1943, just 16 months after construction began, the Pentagon was completed. In April, occupants began moving in. Including outside facilities, the project cost about $83,000,000.

Read more: The Pentagon — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/pentagon1.html#ixzz1VLjtQE7g


What happens when a plane hits a reinforced concrete wall?

No more plane.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJDqXbtsKlw

Contrary to popular belief September 11, 2001 was not the first time a steel framed building collapsed due to fire. Though the examples below are not high rise buildings, they make the point that fire alone can collapse a steel structure.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."




On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.

pg 6/74

The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.

The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.

The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural
steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74

The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]



http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Does the term 'Triage' mean anything to you?

"the assigning of priority order to projects on the basis of where funds and other resources can be best used, are most needed, or are most likely to achieve success "

Priority 1: Safety of rescuers .... wounded / dead rescuers are just more victims

Priority 2: Save the living ..... treatment to patients and especially battle and disaster victims according to a system of priorities designed to maximize the number of survivors

Priority 3: Conserve forensics



Clear the debris to render rescue safe, remove debris that prevents rescue, clear an area for triage of rescued victims, keep 'obvious' pieces of evidence aside.

Should they save a slab of concrete or a living person?

As pointed out by Peccy, there is one major flaw in that experiment. The piece of rebar that is suspended has no external pressures exerted on it. The steel I-beams in high rise buildings have external pressures exerted on them, same as the wood beams in a two story home.

For that experiment to actually come close to equating the events of 9-11 there must be external pressures exerted on that piece of rebar. So if it read:

2. Then place a piece of steel -- perhaps a short length of 'rebar' would be appropriate -- suspended above the flame and perpendicular to it with 1000 psi pressure applied end to end. Be sure to get it in the 'hot spot'.


6. When your steel buckles in area weakened by heat send us the video or images and we will put your name on the check. Simple!


Oh yeah. After experiment has been done properly.....I'll take that check in Canadian dollars please.

In very broad strokes, socialism is an economic system in which "the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." In modern societies, socialism often attempts to eradicate class divisions. While the word "socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "communism," the two aren't the same -- communism is a more extreme form of socialism.

Communism advocates the "collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members." While communism is first and foremost an economic system, it's also a political ideology that rejects religion. And just as communism is a form of socialism, Marxism, Maoism, and Leninism are branches of communism.

Like socialism and communism, fascism uses a central authority to maintain control, but "terror and censorship" are common. It results from economic failure in democratic political systems. Interestingly, while socialism and communism are both on the left end of the political spectrum, fascism contains elements of both "left and right ideology" and rises from economic collapse. The most famous fascist was Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. That ought to tell you it's not a good way to run a country.

http://ask.yahoo.com/20050920.html

..................................................

When one usually discusses communist and fascist ideology, it is in terms of the effects of their embittered hatred for one another. The rise of both ideologies in the shrinking geopolitical arena of 20th century international politics created a situation that brought the two schools of thought into conflict; reaching a pinnacle of conflict during the years of World War II. However, these systems shared many similarities. For example, the aspiration of creating a utopian society through military expansion was intrinsic in the political goals of both institutions. In this section, I will stray away from the ideologically similar goals of fascism and communism, and instead discuss the intrinsic requirement of authoritarian rule in both systems.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/fascistpersonalitycult/comparing_communist___fascist_personality_cults

..............................................

Remember your high school history lessons? Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini hated Joseph Stalin? Enough so for Hitler to open a "Eastern Front"

Uh ....... Germany WWII = Fascist not Socialist.

...............................................................

com·mu·nism
noun \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\
Definition of COMMUNISM
1
a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2
capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively






fas·cism
noun \ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Definition of FASCISM
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
— fas·cist \-shist also -sist\ noun or adjective often capitalized
— fas·cis·tic \fa-ˈshis-tik also -ˈsis-\ adjective often capitalized
— fas·cis·ti·cal·ly \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb often capitalized


Uhhh ...... been a while but from my history lessons I really don't remember Stalin and Hitler having the same ideas and getting along.


Almost forgot.....so these 'liberal thinkers' were they Communists or Fascists? I'm confused now.

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
Albert Einstein


S.E.A.L. Teams and other Special Mission Units are the ones that do something about it.

Why get only 1? Tag the car electronically and wait for a full load then target it.

Israel cannot properly defend itself holding to the 1967 borders. It must have and hold the current territory to assure it's own defense.

This is repeated constantly to it's own people and to the world.

Yet ....................


Former Israeli diplomats in Washington: 1967 borders are defensible
The former ambassadors and decorated soldiers met with U.S. National Security Council in Washington with an appraisal of Israel's security needs significantly different from the prime minister's.
By Natasha Mozgovaya

A group of former Israeli army officials and diplomats visited Washington Monday, claiming that a peace agreement with the Palestinians is urgent in spite of, and because of, regional turmoil, and that contrary to what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claims, the 1967 borders are, in fact, defensible.

The group visited the White House on Monday and met with the National Security Council Director for Middle East and North Africa Steven Simon, and were to have meetings later in the evening with acting Middle East envoy David Hale and officials at the Pentagon.

Among the group participants were Major General (Ret.) Natan Sharoni, a battery commander in the Sinai Campaign and a battalion commander during the Six Day War who later became Head of Planning for the IDF and Ambassador Alon Pinkas, who served as Consul General of Israel in New York.

Joining the two was Ambassador Ilan Baruch, who served with the Israeli Foreign Ministry for more than thirty years and stirred a public debate in Israel when, upon his resignation, he penned an open letter critical of Israeli government policies.

Others in the group include Colonel (Ret.) Shaul Arieli, who was Commander of the Northern Brigade in Gaza, and was responsible for the evacuation and transfer of the Gaza Strip to Palestinian control in 1994 and distinguished soldier Brigadier General (Ret.) Nehemiah Dagan.

Major General (Ret.) Shlomo Gazit, who was head of the Assessment Department in IDF Intelligence and later became Coordinator of Israeli Government Operations in the Administered Territories and Attorney Gilead Sher, the legal representative for the Shalit family also joined the group.

“We are here because we feel that we are running out of time, and there is no actual status quo,” Sharoni told Haaretz Monday. “The dynamic is such that we must act quickly so that we don’t find ourselves facing actions that cannot be corrected.”

“We are here because we are concerned that the Jewish state won't remain Jewish and democratic. Thirty years from now, Jews will be one-third of the population from Jordan to the Mediterranean. And the culture that is developing in Israel these days suggests that the one-third will control the two-thirds,” he said.

The second issue that concerns the group is that no credible critics have dared to counter Prime Minister Netanyahu's claim that the 1967 borders are “indefensible”.

“It has already entered the Israeli political lexicon as an axiom”, Sharoni said. “We think it's misleading. The 1967 borders are defensible, we just need to define – defensible against what? It's true they are indefensible against rockets from Iran, but so is all the territory of Israel.”

“They are indefensible against terror and Hezbollah rockets,” he added. “But to say that the strategic depth of the Jordan Valley will save Israel, that is a deception.”
Sharoni said that what has traditionally constituted the ‘Eastern front’ against Israel is now non-existent.

“Iraq doesn't have the capacity to send ground divisions against us; we have peace with Jordan, and Syria won't go to war against Israel by herself. I am sure the prime minister knows it – but he probably doesn't want to make any use of this information,” Sharoni said.

Sharoni responded to a question from Haaretz concerning a possible threat emerging on the Eastern front ten years in the future, dismissing the supposed necessity of maintaining sovereignty over a part of the West Bank to act as a buffer zone in the event of an attack.

“Do we actually need to control the Jordan Valley to confront these threats? To move one or two IDF divisions to seize control of the Valley takes up to 36 hours. With our deterrence and mobility, there is no problem with it. If it will be a demilitarized zone – if something happens, there is enough time to get there.”

“And the Palestinians need Jordan Valley to develop as a viable state, especially if they want to absorb refugees. IDF can protect any borders, it's just the question of developing the right strategy to do it,” Sharoni continued.

“It is folly to measure strategic depth in another 1000 kilometers – when our entire country doesn't provide strategic depth, and frankly, I don’t think any country in the world today does, against the current threats,” added Sharoni.

“In 25 years, we had five wars with Egypt, from different territorial positions, and before there was a peace agreement, no borders deterred them from going to war against us,” said Colonel Arieli. “Control of the territory can be replaced with advantages of other security arrangements.”

“What scares us is that our current leadership has no courage and no pragmatism necessary to deal with the challenges,” he added.

“I have warm sentiments for Nablus and Hebron”, said Maj.Gen. (ret.) Gazit, referring to two West Bank cities that are populated almost wholly by Palestinians.

“I would love to have all of the Land of Israel. But we need to understand the difference between the defensible borders - and viable borders,” said Gazit. “If the Palestinian state is not viable – we shoot ourselves in the leg”.

A White House National Security spokesman told Haaretz following the visit, “Meetings like this are a routine part of our work. Our officials meet with a wide variety of groups and delegations on an ongoing basis.”

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/former-israeli-diplomats-in-washington-1967-borders-are-defensible-1.375235



Even those who helped Israel become what it is do not believe the lie. They have been there, they know.

1... Only one of Osama's wives was still with him. His fourth. One had been divorced and the others had left for Syria.

2... Other than Osama 3 ADULT males were killed. His ADULT son and two courriers.

3... One female, unrelated, was killed in a crossfire.

4... His wife was shot in leg when she tried to get between S.E.A.L.s and Osama.

5.... Bodyguards, believe it or not, get paid to take the bullet. That's why they are called bodyguards.

6... The body was given a burial at sea with Muslim prayers. Though uncommon it is done in some cases where Muslims die at sea. Preferred is regular burial but at same time would provide a shrine for future terrorists. (take note that the grave of Herman Hess has been razed and the body taken to sea to because Neo-Nazi's were using as a symbol of their ideology.)

Cheer and brag. Sounds like there was a lot of that when 9-11 occurred, when Marine Barracks were blown, when US embassy was blown and other acts committed by Al Qaeda. The rest of the world has won, earned the right to cheer that he is no more.

Only those who have seen the actual Classified Orders can say for sure that it was illegal (Pakistan had no idea) or legal (Pakistan knew and required the ability to deny). Going by prior operations .... Pakistan knew, aided and abetted with the deny option there to use.

Religion breakdown in Pakistan

* Islam
o Sunni: 80-95% [3][6][7][8][9]
o Shia: 5-20% [3][5][6][7][8][9]
o Ahmadi: approximately 2.3% or 4 million [17][18][19]

* Other religions
o Christians: approx. 1.6% [3] or 2,800,000 people
o Hindus: approx. 1.6% [3] or 2,800,000 people
o Bahá'ís: 79,000 [20]
o Sikhs: 20,000 [9]
o Zoroastrian/Parsis: 20,000
o Buddhist: Unknown
o Jews: Unknown

The state religion is Islam. Seems a good enough reason to complain to UAE that you feel wronged, invaded and had no knowledge of events prior to their happening.

Would you seriously expect a Muslim nation NOT to complain publicly !! Welcome to wonderful game of International Politics.

A senior U.S. official who briefed reporters at the White House late Sunday said no Pakistani forces were involved in the operation to kill Bin Laden and that Pakistan was not told of the mission beforehand.

However, agents with Pakistan's primary intelligence agency were quick to claim some of the credit. A source in the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, described the mission in Abbottabad, about 35 miles north of Islamabad, as a joint operation.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/02/world/la-fg-bin-laden-pakistan-20110502


It's all about the principle of deniability. International Politics 101



This comes out to the same thing as when Iraq was invaded and Canada 'refused' to take part. Yet Canadians assisted with the planning months before it started / continued in front-line strategy planning / used assets already in place to assist / the 2nd IC of American Forces in Iraq was a Canadian / Canadian DND personnel got the US troops and equipment on site / and had personnel boots on the ground in Iraq. Canada was the third largest contributor to US forces Iraq yet we were 'refusing to assist in Iraq' publicly. (The only two nations ahead of Canada ... Great Britain and Australia...neither which denied being part of the Coalition of the Willing)

............



Aid not cut to Pakistan. Restrictions are in place however and not because of any protest to UAE but because of a 'alleged reluctance to combat terrorists.

US House panel backs restrictions on Pakistan aid

WASHINGTON: The US House Foreign Affairs Committee approved on Friday a bill that would defund a $7.5 billion aid to Pakistan programme if signed into law, dealing a serious blow to already strained relations between the two allies.

On Thursday, the committee had rejected an amendment proposed by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican, which sought to block all aid to Pakistan because of its alleged reluctance to combat terrorists.

But the narrow, party-based Friday vote – 23 for and 20 against – indicated that the bill would have a hard time clearing the Democrat-dominated Senate, although it might clear the Republican-dominated House where it would go next.

All but one Republican members of the committee voted for the suggested restrictions on US aid to Pakistan. All 20 Democrats voted against it. Congressman Ron Paul, the lone Republican dissenter, warned that the US could not afford to isolate Pakistan and that the restrictions would only fan anti-Americans feelings in that “sensitive region” of the world without achieving much.

The bill’s mover and the committee’s chairperson Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, however, insisted that Pakistan needed to be told that it would have to speed up the fight against terrorism or face sanctions. “It cannot be business as usual.”


Rest of article can be found:


http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/23/us-house-panel-backs-restrictions-on-pakistan-aid.html

No "armed conflict". hmmmmm k although ...........


An armed conflict is a contested incompatibility which concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed force between two parties, of which at least one is the government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related deaths.

The definition has been published in Appendix 2 in our articles in Journal of Peace Research 1993–2009, for instance, in Wallensteen, Peter & Margareta Sollenberg, 2001. ’Armed Conflict 1989–2000’, Journal of Peace Research 38(5): 629–644.

The separate elements of the definition are operationalised as follows:

(1) Use of armed force: use of arms in order to promote the parties’ general position in the conflict, resulting in deaths. Arms: any material means, e.g. manufactured weapons but also sticks, stones, fire, water, etc.

(2) 25 deaths: a minimum of 25 battle-related deaths per year and per incompatibility.

(3) Party: a government of a state or any opposition organisation or alliance of opposition organisations.

(3.1) Government: the party controlling the capital of the state.
(3.2) Opposition organisation: any non-governmental group of people having announced a name for their group and using armed force.

(4) State: a state is

(4.1) an internationally recognized sovereign government controlling a specified territory, or
(4.2) an internationally unrecognised government controlling a specified territory whose sovereignty is not disputed by another internationally recognised sovereign government previously controlling the same territory.

(5) Incompatibility concerning government and/or territory the incompatibility, as stated by the parties, must concern government and/or territory.

(5.1) Incompatibility: the stated generally incompatible positions.
(5.2) Incompatibility concerning government: incompatibility concerning type of political system, the replacement of the central government or the change of its composition.
(5.3) Incompatibility concerning territory: incompatibility concerning the status of a territory, e.g. the change of the state in control of a certain territory (interstate conflict), secession or autonomy (intrastate conflict).



Definition taken from Uppsala Universitet ...Department of Peace and Conflict Research

http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/definitions/definition_of_armed_conflict/






Actions by Al Qaeda and counter action seems to fit this definition.




So did Delta in a rescue attempt that got completely Fubar'd. They were still honored for the attempt.

Being Canadian does not kill threads.

Canadian and proud of it !!!!

Until such time as those orders become de-classified. We'll never know.

Don't hold your breath either. There are still classified orders from WWII.

Tsk tsk

Misquotes, selective quotes are used enough to spread crap. What I said was:



Pakistan was aware of what was happening and of US operations within their borders regarding counter-terror operations. Pakistan has not complain too loudly about the operation because they knew it was coming and aided.

.....Assassination for political ends / advantage is as old as politics itself.

Chanakya (c. 350-283 BC) wrote about assassinations in detail in his political treatise Arthashastra. From wiki.. History of Assassination.


.....In 1981, President Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12333, which codified a policy first laid down in 1976 by the Ford administration. It stated, "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."[12]

Yet attempts against Fidel Castro continued after this.

.....

Whoever does the copy for the advertising department needs to get facts right. The name of the operation was Operation Neptune Spear. 'Geronimo' was name of target.
The operation broke no laws at home or internationally. With a token "We knew nothing" from Pakistan. Precision targeting of high ranking enemy during a armed conflict is not assassination, it is military action.

Bonjour from Montreal