=> The Collapse of the WTC Read it. sorry. :'-(
EagleEye
and then later as they come crashing stright down.
Did you know that never, EVER before in the history of large highrise steel
structured buildings that not one has ever collapsed due to fire? There have
been fires sure, and way worse then in the north and sout tower of the WTC,
and worse than the one in the WTC7, thought it wasn't hit by a plane or
significantly damaged by falling debris. Nope, they came down in a
controlled demolition, and to company which carted away the debris?
Ironically named Controlled Demolition, the same which handled the Federal
Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
Now watch the Oklahoma City Boming episode in the follow video
Download 911 The Road to Tyranny @
http://www.c0balt.com/resources/911/download.shtml
Believe me, it's worth watching, even putting aside everything but the
Oklahoma City Bombing and then, in your minds eye, in hindsight, look again
at the collapse of the World Trade Centre. and then draw your own
conclusion.
And then review this info, but there's alot more where that came from.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/
You want motive, opportunity? That is all over the place all in the public
record.
You wanna know how the Bush's and the Bin Laden's are connected?
This whole eposide was scripted from day one. The Bush Administration did
much more than merely "take advantage" of 911. It was made to order. Some of
the hyjackers were trained on US bases, vias were pushed through from Saudi,
FBI invesitgations QUASHED not just ignored or fallen through the cracks,
they were willfully thwarted from doing anything of a preventative measure
of any kind!
Did you know that a brother of Bush was on the board of a security co
handling American and the WTC.
Ever heard of the put options run on American and a number of companies
housed in the WTC in the days leading up to the events.
How about everything that the government knew, months prior.
Oh and there's the general of the Pakistani SIS who was meeting with high
ranking officials in Washington just before 9/11.
Where was Osama that very day. According to some reports, even by American
newspapers, he was at a hospital in Pakistan under SIS, and of course CIA
watch!
Why was it that Cheney, Bush and Co stared taking Cipro on September
12th!!!!
All this stuff is DOCUMENTS and sits in the public record.
Wake up American. You've been HOODWINKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
9/11 - the eye in this storm.
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm
Click links 5 and 6
5) Evidence for Explosives in the Twin Towers
6) Did the Twin Towers Collapse on Demand?
Unknown
wrote:
>Now in hindsight, take a good close look again at the fires in the towers,
>and then later as they come crashing stright down.
>
>Did you know that never, EVER before in the history of large highrise steel
>structured buildings that not one has ever collapsed due to fire?
In a nutshell, they came because of shortcuts taken in constructing
the building, and fireproofing it, coupled with the fact that each
floor was packed with tons of combustible office equipment and
furniture.
>There have
>been fires sure, and way worse then in the north and sout tower of the WTC,
>and worse than the one in the WTC7, thought it wasn't hit by a plane or
>significantly damaged by falling debris. Nope, they came down in a
>controlled demolition, and to company which carted away the debris?
>Ironically named Controlled Demolition, the same which handled the Federal
>Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
[Cue the Twilight Zone music]
>Now watch the Oklahoma City Boming episode in the follow video
>
>Download 911 The Road to Tyranny @
OK, folks, the black helicopter crowd has swooped down upon us. Get
away while ya can.
Jason Murray - The Great One
I wonder why people are always looking for outlandish conspiracies for
things?
<VoiceOfReason> wrote in message
news:slf0ovs8e3dtoqtmo...@4ax.com...
D
"EagleEye" <eagl...@omega.org> wrote in message
news:P2Tfb.868$fP6....@news20.bellglobal.com...
wolf2ii
wrote:
>Now in hindsight, take a good close look again at the fires in the towers,
>and then later as they come crashing stright down.
>
>Did you know that never, EVER before in the history of large highrise steel
>structured buildings that not one has ever collapsed due to fire? There have
>been fires sure, and way worse then in the north and sout tower of the WTC,
>and worse than the one in the WTC7, thought it wasn't hit by a plane or
>significantly damaged by falling debris. Nope, they came down in a
>controlled demolition, and to company which carted away the debris?
>Ironically named Controlled Demolition, the same which handled the Federal
>Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
Unlike you, I don't have all the facts, so some of my facts could be
in error--But I feel they are closer than your facts
Ever see how they we designed ? There were little of no internal
supports, the supports were on the outside walls--the plane crashes
themselves did not cause the collapse--it was the burning Jet fuel, of
almost full tanks, rasing the heat to were the support beams buckled,
one floor dropped to next, then the next.....
>Now watch the Oklahoma City Boming episode in the follow video
>
>Download 911 The Road to Tyranny @
>
>http://www.c0balt.com/resources/911/download.shtml
>
>Believe me, it's worth watching, even putting aside everything but the
>Oklahoma City Bombing and then, in your minds eye, in hindsight, look again
>at the collapse of the World Trade Centre. and then draw your own
>conclusion.
OK, the Oklahoma building had internal supports, which most building
do
>
>And then review this info, but there's alot more where that came from.
>http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/
>
>You want motive, opportunity? That is all over the place all in the public
>record.
Rumors spread fast, and some people believe them
So, a rumor, or someone opinion on the net is considered a official
public record ?
>
>You wanna know how the Bush's and the Bin Laden's are connected?
>
>This whole eposide was scripted from day one. The Bush Administration did
>much more than merely "take advantage" of 911. It was made to order. Some of
>the hyjackers were trained on US bases, vias were pushed through from Saudi,
>FBI invesitgations QUASHED not just ignored or fallen through the cracks,
>they were willfully thwarted from doing anything of a preventative measure
>of any kind!
Since the plan started before Clinton was elected the second time, and
lets not forget that Clinton relax vias policies were still in
effect.
>
>Did you know that a brother of Bush was on the board of a security co
>handling American and the WTC.
>
>Ever heard of the put options run on American and a number of companies
>housed in the WTC in the days leading up to the events.
Sure I have, but so far the investigations have not turned up
anything. At least not that they told us, but I have notice a few
accounts were frozen, but only for foreign connections.
>
>How about everything that the government knew, months prior.
OK, what did the government know ?
>
>Oh and there's the general of the Pakistani SIS who was meeting with high
>ranking officials in Washington just before 9/11.
High ranking officials always have meetings
Are you trying to say it was the Pakistani SIS that was responsible
for the attack ?
>
>Where was Osama that very day. According to some reports, even by American
>newspapers, he was at a hospital in Pakistan under SIS, and of course CIA
>watch!
According to some reports, do you have a little more facts or just
according to some reports
>
>Why was it that Cheney, Bush and Co stared taking Cipro on September
>12th!!!!
Gee, maybe the Secret Service wanted to protect them from the unknown,
It is their job-- but it appears that they didn't need it
>
>All this stuff is DOCUMENTS and sits in the public record.
>
All this stuff is DOCUMENTS and sits on the internet for people who
want to believe it
>Wake up American. You've been HOODWINKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Off hand , I would say you been HOODWINKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wolf
Von Bailey
> wrote:
>
> >Now in hindsight, take a good close look again at the fires in the towers,
> >and then later as they come crashing stright down.
> >
> >Did you know that never, EVER before in the history of large highrise steel
> >structured buildings that not one has ever collapsed due to fire?
>
> In a nutshell, they came because of shortcuts taken in constructing
> the building, and fireproofing it, coupled with the fact that each
> floor was packed with tons of combustible office equipment and
> furniture.
>
up with creative non-supportable solutions for things that you can't
explain with evidence. Where is the study that supports your claim
about combustible office "equipment and funiture"? It's ridiculous on
it's face!
Also, your claims about shortcuts taken in constructing the building
is falacious also. Have ANYTHING to support that statement besides
what you believe?
von
Seethis Pass
>
>Ever see how they we designed ? There were little of no internal
>supports, the supports were on the outside walls--the plane crashes
>themselves did not cause the collapse--it was the burning Jet fuel, of
>almost full tanks, rasing the heat to were the support beams buckled,
>one floor dropped to next, then the next.....
>
It Sounds fine.
They Needed something you cauld latch onto and believe, so sounding Ok
was the point.
Get past the sound of it and look at what you see.
What you describe and indeed what is said to have happened is simply
not what is seen on the videos.
The buildings are paractically powder even as they Begin to fall.
There is no resistance to the fall.
In building 7, there is no believable reason given for this.
Steel granite concrete and glass is what is said to have "collapsed
due to fire"
That sounds OK but it is hogwash.
That building , which was SOLID on september 10, 2001 had a fire and
turned to Dust and fell down because it had turned to dust,
It didn't break and tear and crush it fell as dust with mostly its
exterior skin left as solid material.
That's just not plausable.
It is a story that only serves if one is Already Convinced of its
truth before one even knows what happened.
Building 7 had No plane crash and No jet fuel to blame its destruction
on.It only had a fire of questionable intensity. in which thousands of
gallons of diesel fuel didn't even get hot enough to vaporise and
catch fire.
You wouldn't believe it if you saw a house fire and diesel fuel was
running wetly down the street from the middle of the fire .
What is so different here?
Explain building 7 and you explain all of the rest.
But sitting there thinking that the government has told you what
happened on 9/11 ( other than the bleedingly obvious) is just a false
belief.
They are actively declairing all real information classified.
They have gone to extra measures of unusual secrecy about the most
important act in modern history.
We not only don't have the "right to know " we don't have the balls to
ask.We just believe that 47 story buildings turn to dust and freefall
"due to fire"
What We don't know won't get Them in trouble.
Von Bailey
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 07:14:56 -0400, "EagleEye" <eagl...@omega.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Now in hindsight, take a good close look again at the fires in the towers,
> >and then later as they come crashing stright down.
> >
> >Did you know that never, EVER before in the history of large highrise steel
> >structured buildings that not one has ever collapsed due to fire? There have
> >been fires sure, and way worse then in the north and sout tower of the WTC,
> >and worse than the one in the WTC7, thought it wasn't hit by a plane or
> >significantly damaged by falling debris. Nope, they came down in a
> >controlled demolition, and to company which carted away the debris?
> >Ironically named Controlled Demolition, the same which handled the Federal
> >Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
>
> Unlike you, I don't have all the facts, so some of my facts could be
> in error--But I feel they are closer than your facts
>
> supports, the supports were on the outside walls--the plane crashes
> themselves did not cause the collapse--it was the burning Jet fuel, of
> almost full tanks, rasing the heat to were the support beams buckled,
> one floor dropped to next, then the next.....
>
in the immediate area of the crash. How did this cause the steel 40
stories down to buckle?
Here's an article pointing out that the WTC towers were designed to
withstand just the type of crash that occured on 9/11 and why the
explinations given are not sufficient to explain what occured.
http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1571_comment.php
von
Unknown
wrote:
>VoiceOfReason <> wrote in message news:<slf0ovs8e3dtoqtmo...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 07:14:56 -0400, "EagleEye" <eagl...@omega.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Now in hindsight, take a good close look again at the fires in the towers,
>> >and then later as they come crashing stright down.
>> >
>> >Did you know that never, EVER before in the history of large highrise steel
>> >structured buildings that not one has ever collapsed due to fire?
>>
>> In a nutshell, they came because of shortcuts taken in constructing
>> the building, and fireproofing it, coupled with the fact that each
>> floor was packed with tons of combustible office equipment and
>> furniture.
>>
>You have something to back this up with? You are notorious for coming
>up with creative non-supportable solutions for things that you can't
>explain with evidence. Where is the study that supports your claim
>about combustible office "equipment and funiture"? It's ridiculous on
>it's face!
Hell no, it makes a lot of sense. As one who lives in the NYC area,
there have numerous studies and interviews of structural engineers
over the past 2 years, including those who worked on its construction
30 years ago. Many felt that what kept the fires going long enough
was all the carpeting, furniture, equipment that you'd find in any
modern office. Had the fires burned out sooner, the trusses might
have held up, instead of buckling, which had a domino effect, as one
floor crashed onto the one below it, pushing that one down, etc.
>Also, your claims about shortcuts taken in constructing the building
>is falacious also. Have ANYTHING to support that statement besides
>what you believe?
Again, there are allegations, particularly when the fireproofing was
redone a few years ago (after the 1993 bombing) that there was
"skimping" going on.
No, I don't have any URL's handy, but if you really must know, just
search the NY Times. Again, they've run countless stories about what
may have happened inside there that day.
Unknown
wrote:
>wol...@nospamjoimail.com (wolf2ii) wrote in message news:<3f82922a...@news2.myjoi.net>...
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 07:14:56 -0400, "EagleEye" <eagl...@omega.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Now in hindsight, take a good close look again at the fires in the towers,
>> >and then later as they come crashing stright down.
>> >
>> >Did you know that never, EVER before in the history of large highrise steel
>> >structured buildings that not one has ever collapsed due to fire? There have
>> >been fires sure, and way worse then in the north and sout tower of the WTC,
>> >and worse than the one in the WTC7, thought it wasn't hit by a plane or
>> >significantly damaged by falling debris. Nope, they came down in a
>> >controlled demolition, and to company which carted away the debris?
>> >Ironically named Controlled Demolition, the same which handled the Federal
>> >Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
>>
>> Unlike you, I don't have all the facts, so some of my facts could be
>> in error--But I feel they are closer than your facts
>>
>> Ever see how they we designed? There were little of no internal
>> supports, the supports were on the outside walls--the plane crashes
>> themselves did not cause the collapse--it was the burning Jet fuel, of
>> almost full tanks, rasing the heat to were the support beams buckled,
>> one floor dropped to next, then the next.....
>>
>According to the reports the fuel burned at most 20 seconds and only
>in the immediate area of the crash. How did this cause the steel 40
>stories down to buckle?
Again, it was the *tons* of combustible stuff inside that "fed" the
flames. The floors in the immediate vicinity of the hit were no
doubt vaporized, and the floors above were the ones that buckled
ultimately, coming down on one another in a domino effect.
>Here's an article pointing out that the WTC towers were designed to
>withstand just the type of crash that occured on 9/11 and why the
>explinations given are not sufficient to explain what occured.
>
>http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1571_comment.php
And the WTC *did* withstand the *impact* of the jets. Again, it was
the uncontrolled fire raging (for over an hour) that buckled the steel
to the point it could no longer support a load. The sprinkler systems
were taken out by the planes.
If it were up to me, I would impose a moratorium on buildings over 50
or so stories high until a sufficient procedure is developed to
extinguish a fire in the upper floors and rescue those trapped there.
Nada, John
> No, I don't have any URL's handy, but if you really must know, just
> search the NY Times.
The New York Times is a piece of shit socialist rag.
It always has been. Why would anybody search for
the truth there?
> Again, they've run countless stories about what
> may have happened inside there that day.
Any lie will do.
Von Bailey
What "combustible stuff"? Buildings are not designed for such are not
supposed to have '*tons* of combustible stuff' in them. Why would
there be such in office space? What in your office is combustible?
> The floors in the immediate vicinity of the hit were no
> doubt vaporized, and the floors above were the ones that buckled
> ultimately, coming down on one another in a domino effect.
>
Which is not how it was supposed to happen. The floors below, which
had withstood the weight of those upper floors for 30 years should
have continued to do so unless they too had been weakened. But there
was nothing (that was reported) that explains why those floors
buckled.
> >Here's an article pointing out that the WTC towers were designed to
> >withstand just the type of crash that occured on 9/11 and why the
> >explinations given are not sufficient to explain what occured.
> >
> >http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1571_comment.php
>
> And the WTC *did* withstand the *impact* of the jets. Again, it was
> the uncontrolled fire raging (for over an hour) that buckled the steel
> to the point it could no longer support a load. The sprinkler systems
> were taken out by the planes.
>
Except that the steel doesn't buckle in the manner in which it is
supposed to have done so wrt the WTC. The lower floors should not
have buckled regardless of what happened to those upper floors. And
there is NO EVIDENCE that the steel DID buckle in those upper floors
nor an explination of why IF it did buckle it went straight down
instead of toppling over to the weakened side at the sight of impact.
von
Von Bailey
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
>
> > No, I don't have any URL's handy, but if you really must know, just
> > search the NY Times.
>
> The New York Times is a piece of shit socialist rag.
> It always has been. Why would anybody search for
> the truth there?
>
WMDs in Iraq prior and during the war. They all turned out to be
false but she still reports for them. Interesting thing is a man
wrote some false stories earlier this year and was publicly drummed
out of the business with the NY Times printing a prominent article
exposing his lies and this woman who apparently reported lies that
facilitated an unjust war is still there and no articles publicly
denouncing her reporting.
von
Von Bailey
> On 7 Oct 2003 08:24:50 -0700, red...@MailAndNews.com (Von Bailey)
> wrote:
>
> >VoiceOfReason <> wrote in message news:<slf0ovs8e3dtoqtmo...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 07:14:56 -0400, "EagleEye" <eagl...@omega.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Now in hindsight, take a good close look again at the fires in the towers,
> >> >and then later as they come crashing stright down.
> >> >
> >> >Did you know that never, EVER before in the history of large highrise steel
> >> >structured buildings that not one has ever collapsed due to fire?
> >>
> >> In a nutshell, they came because of shortcuts taken in constructing
> >> the building, and fireproofing it, coupled with the fact that each
> >> floor was packed with tons of combustible office equipment and
> >> furniture.
> >>
> >You have something to back this up with? You are notorious for coming
> >up with creative non-supportable solutions for things that you can't
> >explain with evidence. Where is the study that supports your claim
> >about combustible office "equipment and funiture"? It's ridiculous on
> >it's face!
>
> Hell no, it makes a lot of sense.
It makes sense that two cups with the same amount of water in them
with the only difference being that one has steaming hot water in it
and the other has cold water in it that the cold water will turn to
ice faster than the hot water. However, given that the steam coming
off the hot water is actually water leaving the cup, less water will
actually have to be frozen in the cup with the hot water and therefore
the hot water left will freeze faster than the cold water. There's a
lot of detail that may change that like the actual tempeture of the
hot and cold water, but in general it works out as described.
That's why there are people who do scientific studies of events
instead assuming stuff because "it makes lot of sense". Just because
it "makes a lot of sense" doesn't mean that it isn't wrong.
> As one who lives in the NYC area,
> there have numerous studies and interviews of structural engineers
> over the past 2 years, including those who worked on its construction
> 30 years ago. Many felt that what kept the fires going long enough
> was all the carpeting, furniture, equipment that you'd find in any
> modern office. Had the fires burned out sooner, the trusses might
> have held up, instead of buckling, which had a domino effect, as one
> floor crashed onto the one below it, pushing that one down, etc.
>
So all any of them has is a *guess* based on the fact that no one was
given the ability to sift through the rubble in order to do a
forensics analysis of the building. These 'studies' you refer to are
all just guesses which in itself questionable. Why, in one of the
most horrific incidents of american history was there no detailed
analysis of the crime scene?
Again, there isn't a shred of evidence to support the assumptions in
these reports and they are contridicted by structural engineers all
over the country.
> >Also, your claims about shortcuts taken in constructing the building
> >is falacious also. Have ANYTHING to support that statement besides
> >what you believe?
>
> Again, there are allegations, particularly when the fireproofing was
> redone a few years ago (after the 1993 bombing) that there was
> "skimping" going on.
>
> No, I don't have any URL's handy, but if you really must know, just
> search the NY Times. Again, they've run countless stories about what
> may have happened inside there that day.
So as usual all we have is your impressions as you can supply nothing
to back up your words.
von
Nada, John
> > The New York Times is a piece of shit socialist rag.
> > It always has been. Why would anybody search for
> > the truth there?
> >
> Good point. I read several article in by reporter Judith Miller about
> WMDs in Iraq prior and during the war. They all turned out to be
> false but she still reports for them.
That's a lie.
Just because you are not capable of processing
the information does not make them false.
> Interesting thing is a man
> wrote some false stories earlier this year and was publicly drummed
> out of the business with the NY Times printing a prominent article
> exposing his lies
All of his lies were quite provable.
> and this woman who apparently reported lies
"apparently reported lies"?
'Apparently' seems to be the operative word.
Apparently you have no facts to back up your lies.
> that
> facilitated an unjust war is still there and no articles publicly
> denouncing her reporting.
Apparently your opinion is based on
the words of murder Ted Kennedy and
the other lie telling, hate mongering,
members of the demonkraps socialist party.
Makes you look like a dumbass.
You have plenty of company on usenet.
Midnight basketball for socialist kornholers.
Mudda Lann Newz Servus
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:c1c1301f.03100...@posting.google.com...
Once again, 'von' shows how selective listening shapes his opinion.
The columns (vertical members) depended upon the floor trusses (horizontal
members) to maintain their spacing and keep them from bowing due to the
weight above
once the fire weakened the floor trusses to where they melted and sagged,
there was nothing to provide lateral support for the columns........and they
bowed and collapsed
there, that isn't so difficult to understand, is it ?
>
> > >Here's an article pointing out that the WTC towers were designed to
> > >withstand just the type of crash that occured on 9/11 and why the
> > >explinations given are not sufficient to explain what occured.
> > >
> > >http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1571_comment.php
> >
> > And the WTC *did* withstand the *impact* of the jets. Again, it was
> > the uncontrolled fire raging (for over an hour) that buckled the steel
> > to the point it could no longer support a load. The sprinkler systems
> > were taken out by the planes.
> >
>
> Except that the steel doesn't buckle in the manner in which it is
> supposed to have done so wrt the WTC. The lower floors should not
> have buckled regardless of what happened to those upper floors. And
> there is NO EVIDENCE that the steel DID buckle in those upper floors
> nor an explination of why IF it did buckle it went straight down
> instead of toppling over to the weakened side at the sight of impact.
see above, read it carefully, then try to assimilate the information
contained there-in
Fred Mann
architect of the WTC was featured in the show. There was no mention by him
or anyone else of anything suspicious about the collapse. So he's either "in
on it" or he sees the proposed explanation as reasonable. The show includes
fairly clear video of the outer steel skeleton breaking in a manner which
seemed to fit their predictions. To understand the details of why this
building collapsed on its own (i.e. no intentional detonation), you should
watch the show - possibly available through their website. Is it 100%
conclusive? I guess not. But again, the analysts, including the architect
and builders, didn't seem to be suspicious of the collapse.
That being said, there is a GREAT DEAL of suspicious activity concerning the
events of that day - most notably the official description of the
president's activities that day vs. what we know he actually did/didn't do
(all captured on video).
"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:c1c1301f.03100...@posting.google.com...
Andy Walton
<NotAn...@Maxivision.com> wrote:
> Steel granite concrete and glass is what is said to have "collapsed
> due to fire"
> That sounds OK but it is hogwash.
Steel. Full stop. The concrete, granite and glass are irrelevant to the
stuctural strength of the building. Look up the phrase "curtain wall"
and come back when you understand it.
> That building , which was SOLID on september 10, 2001 had a fire and
> turned to Dust and fell down because it had turned to dust,
Well, sure. Except for the part where you just made that up.
> You wouldn't believe it if you saw a house fire and diesel fuel was
> running wetly down the street from the middle of the fire .
I wouldn't believe it if that happened on 9/11/01, either. I keep
repeating -- and you keep ignoring -- that almost all of the diesel
tanks were BELOW STREET LEVEL. The diesel fuel "running wetly down the
street" exists solely in your fertile imagination.
--
"I think the development of an artificial intellect could have a tremendous
impact on society. It may also help me sell more of my roll-up plastic
lighted portable disco dance floors." -- Hugh Loebner, in Wired, 5/95
--------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/
Von Bailey
> Von Bailey wrote:
>
> > > The New York Times is a piece of shit socialist rag.
> > > It always has been. Why would anybody search for
> > > the truth there?
> > >
> > Good point. I read several article in by reporter Judith Miller about
> > WMDs in Iraq prior and during the war. They all turned out to be
> > false but she still reports for them.
>
> That's a lie.
What's a lie, that she reported them or that what she reported was a
lie?
> Just because you are not capable of processing
> the information does not make them false.
>
Your propensity to believe whatever crap supports your delusions
regardless of reality is hampering your ability to see clearly.
However I am not the only person who finds holes in the reporting of
Ms. Miller. Her colleages in the media also question her veracity.
http://www.mediainfo.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1991338
Miller's Star Fades (Slightly) at 'NY Times'
Jackson: Is More Objective WMD Coverage Coming?
[...]
Madam Smallpox
In this context, how could Times' editors have set her up as the main
watchdog on the trigger issue of WMD in a climate of pre-emptive war,
knowing her proclivities?
Times' editors have maintained that Miller has given the paper many
"exclusives," and still deny that many of them were seriously flawed.
But when her work is examined systematically, it is frequently found
to be simply wrong on the facts. She has quoted sources and identified
specific weapons, many of which did not pan out. What becomes of the
injunction of "our duty to our readers" under the Times code?
The "Madam Smallpox" article of last Dec. 3, for example, turned out
to be one of the worst cases. As Dafna Linzer of the Associated Press
has written, the alleged 1990 transfer of the virus to Iraq never took
place. The idea of an especially virulent strain of smallpox, to which
Miller gave so much credibility, has been generally discounted in the
scientific community. Talk to scientists in the field, as I have done
recently, and they will tell you that Miller is inaccurate and that
she doesn't really understand the processes.
Her smallpox article was a piece of structured propaganda from start
to finish, based on a single source making allegations to the CIA. As
one Times source told me: "There were more red flags on this story
than in Moscow on May Day." In fact, the Times over time has ignored
multiple warnings from senior staff (and colleagues such as John
Burns) about Miller's reporting.
[...]
Even though her reporting frequently does not meet published Times
standards, there have yet to be any direct sanctions by the Times
imposed on Miller. What has happened is that she has been put on a
tighter leash, and her copy is carefully edited through the
investigative desk by a new editor.
Following the appearance of a Sept. 25 jointly-authored story on the
yet-to-be-released Iraqi Survey Group's WMD report, with Jehl listed
before Miller, a Times correspondent currently serving abroad sent
this message to me: "I hear that our friend has clipped wings these
days."
There is a widespread perception among staff that her work has brought
dishonor on the newspaper. The perception that she's protected at the
top is widespread, and the reluctance of editors to penalize her adds
to that, one of my sources said. Why did an assistant managing editor
consistently defend her work of the last year? One of the deans of
political writers at the Times tells me: "It makes no sense [but] the
only thing I can think of for that clap-trap going into the paper
without adequate reporting safeguards -- maybe sniffing the Raines?"
[...]
Jayson Blair was only a fluke deviation. Miller strikes right at the
core of the regular functioning news machine.
__________
> > Interesting thing is a man
> > wrote some false stories earlier this year and was publicly drummed
> > out of the business with the NY Times printing a prominent article
> > exposing his lies
>
> All of his lies were quite provable.
>
So are Miller'. The aluminum tubes were not for enriching uranium.
Mr. Saeed's (Saddam's bomb builder) statements about the ability of
Saddam to create an atomic bomb were not true or credible. The US
intelligence agencies did not agree that Saddam was able to build a
bomb. The Iraqi scientist that was pointing out to MET where the CW
were buried was pointing at sand and nothing else. All reported by Ms.
Miller, all false.
> > and this woman who apparently reported lies
>
> "apparently reported lies"?
> 'Apparently' seems to be the operative word.
> Apparently you have no facts to back up your lies.
>
Apparently being diplomatic is lost on you.
> > that
> > facilitated an unjust war is still there and no articles publicly
> > denouncing her reporting.
>
> Apparently your opinion is based on
> the words of murder Ted Kennedy and
> the other lie telling, hate mongering,
> members of the demonkraps socialist party.
>
I was calling Bush a liar before Ted Kennedy had the balls to do so.
I find the democrats just as objectionable as the republicans. Two
sides of the same coin. The democrats are just as responsible for the
mess the US is in as the Republicans.
> Makes you look like a dumbass.
>
...to someone like you who has no idea what he is talking about and
has demonstrated that to be a fact. Kind of makes you wonder why I
should care.
von
Don Tootin'
tremendous amount of papers sitting on my wooden desk, both of which
make up the fuel third of the "fire triangle." Add to that the
carpeting, insulation, boy, flammable stuff everywhere. In a larger
building, there are partition walls which, as far as I can tell, can
burn. I haven't scientifically tested this, but as a former boy scout
who set several campfires, I learned wood, paper, cardboard all burn.
Warnings on other items that say "flammable" add to the theory. If
you need any further convincing of whether flammables are in your
office, you should test the theory in your office. Check with your
supervisors first to make sure it's okay.
I'm well aware that no amount of evidence will ever change the minds
of those who are convinced the WTC towers were attacked by terrorists,
that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, that the Anaheim Angels won
the World Series in 2002. A healthy level of skepticism can be
beneficial...a healthy level. I'm fairly convinced that Bush's
reasons for attacking Iraq were dubious at best (not that I'm sorry
Saddam has been deposed).
To make an assertion that the WTC attack was staged by our government
without sufficent documentation to support your claim then to declaim
practical logic defying your claim is ridiculous. It would be nice
if, for once, somebody would gather more evidence than an online work
of science fiction when they make an assertion rather than this
guerilla tactic.
r_c_brown
My desk, table, chairs, bookcase, books, carpet, office door,
clothing, and lots of paper. With a hot enough fire, I'd expect that
the computers in here would burn, too. People also.
How many offices did the WTC contain? They all would have had some of
the stuff I listed.
Seethis Pass
>
>Well, sure. Except for the part where you just made that up.
>
>> You wouldn't believe it if you saw a house fire and diesel fuel was
>> running wetly down the street from the middle of the fire .
>
>I wouldn't believe it if that happened on 9/11/01, either. I keep
>repeating -- and you keep ignoring -- that almost all of the diesel
>tanks were BELOW STREET LEVEL. The diesel fuel "running wetly down the
>street" exists solely in your fertile imagination.
WRONG chicken lips.
Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank
for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a
47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a
hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon
tank was positioned about 15 feet above the ground floor and near
several lobby elevators and was meant to fuel generators that would
supply electricity to the 23rd-floor bunker in the event of a power
failure. Although the city made some design changes to address the
concerns - moving a fuel pipe that would have run from the tank up an
elevator shaft, for example - it left the tank in place. But the Fire
Department repeatedly warned that a tank in that position could spread
fumes throughout the building if it leaked, or, if it caught fire,
could produce what one Fire Department memorandum called "disaster."
Seethis Pass
wrote:
>In article <pum5ovgb87th8vc12...@4ax.com>, Seethis Pass
><NotAn...@Maxivision.com> wrote:
>
>> Steel granite concrete and glass is what is said to have "collapsed
>> due to fire"
>> That sounds OK but it is hogwash.
>
>Steel. Full stop. The concrete, granite and glass are irrelevant to the
>stuctural strength of the building. Look up the phrase "curtain wall"
>and come back when you understand it.
>
>> That building , which was SOLID on september 10, 2001 had a fire and
>> turned to Dust and fell down because it had turned to dust,
>
>Well, sure. Except for the part where you just made that up.
>
>> You wouldn't believe it if you saw a house fire and diesel fuel was
>> running wetly down the street from the middle of the fire .
>
>I wouldn't believe it if that happened on 9/11/01, either. I keep
>repeating -- and you keep ignoring -- that almost all of the diesel
>tanks were BELOW STREET LEVEL. The diesel fuel "running wetly down the
>street" exists solely in your fertile imagination.
According to FEMA there were diesel tanks on the 7th floor.
See page two here
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf
Now you will change your mind about what you would or would not
believe.
The folks that post here keep demanding proof , I keep supplying it.
When do you change your mind?
Seethis Pass
and paper melts steel.
Guess what .
It doesn't.
Try it and if it does go and tell welders that they have been wasting
effort and money melting steel the hard way with acetylene and arc
welding.
In Building 7 there is no logic to the idea that this 47 story
building freefell because of a fire when the diesel fuel on the
seventh floor did Not burn.
Nada, John
> > > > The New York Times is a piece of shit socialist rag.
> > > > It always has been. Why would anybody search for
> > > > the truth there?
> > > >
> > > Good point. I read several article in by reporter Judith Miller about
> > > WMDs in Iraq prior and during the war. They all turned out to be
> > > false but she still reports for them.
> >
> > That's a lie.
>
> What's a lie, that she reported them or that what she reported was a
> lie?
I'll type slowly for you, kornholer.
The lie is your assertion that
"They all turned out to be false".
You're the liar, kornholer.
See that was easy. Do you get it now?
> > Just because you are not capable of processing
> > the information does not make them false.
> >
>
> Your propensity to believe whatever crap supports your delusions
> regardless of reality is hampering your ability to see clearly.
I only read The Times in a pinch, kornholer.
For entertainment.
> However I am not the only person who finds holes in the reporting of
> Ms. Miller. Her colleages in the media also question her veracity.
> Blah, blah, blah...
> Jayson Blair was only a fluke deviation. Miller strikes right at the
> core of the regular functioning news machine.
Why?
Only dumbass kornholers take that rag seriously.
> > All of his lies were quite provable.
> >
> So are Miller'. The aluminum tubes were not for enriching uranium.
> Mr. Saeed's (Saddam's bomb builder) statements about the ability of
> Saddam to create an atomic bomb were not true or credible. The US
> intelligence agencies did not agree that Saddam was able to build a
> bomb. The Iraqi scientist that was pointing out to MET where the CW
> were buried was pointing at sand and nothing else. All reported by Ms.
> Miller, all false.
Says you and a couple other Hate America Firsters.
That = meaningless.
> > > and this woman who apparently reported lies
> >
> > "apparently reported lies"?
> > 'Apparently' seems to be the operative word.
> > Apparently you have no facts to back up your lies.
> >
> Apparently being diplomatic is lost on you.
Apparently being resolute is lost on you.
> > > that
> > > facilitated an unjust war is still there and no articles publicly
> > > denouncing her reporting.
> >
> > Apparently your opinion is based on
> > the words of murder Ted Kennedy and
> > the other lie telling, hate mongering,
> > members of the demonkraps socialist party.
> >
> I was calling Bush a liar before Ted Kennedy had the balls to do so.
You have more balls than Ted Kennedy. Congrats.
You now have the rest of humanity to catch up to.
> I find the democrats just as objectionable as the republicans. Two
> sides of the same coin. The democrats are just as responsible for the
> mess the US is in as the Republicans.
>
> > Makes you look like a dumbass.
> >
> ...to someone like you who has no idea what he is talking about and
> has demonstrated that to be a fact.
Whatever, kornholer.
> Kind of makes you wonder why I
> should care.
I don't wonder, kornholer.
You're a damaged unit. Usenet is here for you.
Now, go run and hide...
Find a 12 year old to impress.
Andy Walton
<NotAn...@Maxivision.com> wrote:
> >
> >Well, sure. Except for the part where you just made that up.
> >
> >> You wouldn't believe it if you saw a house fire and diesel fuel was
> >> running wetly down the street from the middle of the fire .
> >
> >I wouldn't believe it if that happened on 9/11/01, either. I keep
> >repeating -- and you keep ignoring -- that almost all of the diesel
> >tanks were BELOW STREET LEVEL. The diesel fuel "running wetly down the
> >street" exists solely in your fertile imagination.
>
> WRONG chicken lips.
>
> Fire Department officials warned the city and the Port Authority of
> New York and New Jersey in 1998 and 1999 that a giant diesel fuel tank
> for the mayor's $13 million command bunker in 7 World Trade Center, a
> 47-story high-rise that burned and collapsed on Sept. 11, posed a
> hazard and was not consistent with city fire codes. The 6,000-gallon
"Almost all" might have been a bit of an overstatement. "The vast
majority" would be a better phrase.
--
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to
anyone, but they've always worked for me." -- Hunter S. Thompson
Andy Walton
<NotAn...@Maxivision.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:21:05 GMT, Andy Walton <att...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <pum5ovgb87th8vc12...@4ax.com>, Seethis Pass
> ><NotAn...@Maxivision.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Steel granite concrete and glass is what is said to have "collapsed
> >> due to fire"
> >> That sounds OK but it is hogwash.
> >
> >Steel. Full stop. The concrete, granite and glass are irrelevant to the
> >stuctural strength of the building. Look up the phrase "curtain wall"
> >and come back when you understand it.
> >
> >> That building , which was SOLID on september 10, 2001 had a fire and
> >> turned to Dust and fell down because it had turned to dust,
> >
> >Well, sure. Except for the part where you just made that up.
> >
> >> You wouldn't believe it if you saw a house fire and diesel fuel was
> >> running wetly down the street from the middle of the fire .
> >
> >I wouldn't believe it if that happened on 9/11/01, either. I keep
> >repeating -- and you keep ignoring -- that almost all of the diesel
> >tanks were BELOW STREET LEVEL. The diesel fuel "running wetly down the
> >street" exists solely in your fertile imagination.
>
> According to FEMA there were diesel tanks on the 7th floor.
> See page two here
> http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf
275 gallons. There were a few other tanks that size or smaller above
ground level, and the one 6,000-gallon tank you mention. Some of these
smaller tanks were "day tanks" fed by pipeline from the tanks below
street level. It is not certain, at least from any information I have
seen, whether the fuel in those tanks burned or not.
There were about 22,000 gallons of diesel fuel below ground level. The
EPA estimates that a maximum of 12,000 gallons leaked. So your
assertion that there could not have been a fire falls down due to the
following very complicated scientific analysis:
Fire high, burning upward.
Fuel low, flowing downward.
The "wetly flowing" diesel fuel would have been below the street, not
on it.
> Now you will change your mind about what you would or would not
> believe.
> The folks that post here keep demanding proof , I keep supplying it.
Proof of what? That there was diesel fuel in the building? No one
disputes that. That there was no fire? See page 22 of the PDF you
posted. That there is anything inexplicable about diesel fuel leaking
instead of burning? There isn't.
> When do you change your mind?
I will change my theory when the facts support it, not change the facts
to support my chosen theory.
--
"We were once so close to heaven, Peter came out and gave us medals
declaring us the nicest of the damned." --They Might Be Giants
Andy Walton
<NotAn...@Maxivision.com> wrote:
> The appologists for this attrocity are all howling that burning desks
> and paper melts steel.
You're shifting the goal posts again.
"What combustible material?" You ask. Answered.
Now you're floating the straw man that "burning paper melts steel." No
one is saying that. No one is saying that steel melted. You don't have
to reduce structural steel to liquid to weaken it, whether with a
conventional fire or a Flash Gordon magic ray gun.
According to the FEMA report you posted, one possible source of fire
damage was a diesel pipeline that fed diesel fuel to emergency
generators and ran near one of the primary structural supports near the
area of the observed collapse.
> In Building 7 there is no logic to the idea that this 47 story
> building freefell because of a fire when the diesel fuel on the
> seventh floor did Not burn.
1) THE BUILDING DID NOT BURN DOWN. There was no widespread
conflagration. The building collapsed because its frame was weakened,
probably by fire. That could happen from a localized fire that never
reached that particular part of the 7th floor.
2) Who says the diesel on the 7th floor didn't burn? You seem to be
basing your claim on the premise that if some diesel fuel leaked, it
must follow that no diesel fuel burned. That's silly. Try actually
reading the FEMA report you keep posting and selectively quoting. Be
sure to take a peek at page 22 for a photo of the flames you claim
didn't exist.
--
Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary
words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that
a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no
unnecessary parts. -- William Strunk Jr., "Elements of Style"
Mudda Lann Newz Servus
"Don Tootin'" <dugo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d91788ab.03100...@posting.google.com...
r_c_brown
> The appologists for this attrocity are all howling that burning desks
> and paper melts steel.
Really? I haven't seen anyone claim that. The question was asked:
"What in your office is combustible?"
My answer was:
"My desk, table, chairs, bookcase, books, carpet, office door,
clothing, and lots of paper. With a hot enough fire, I'd expect that
the computers in here would burn, too. People also.
"How many offices did the WTC contain? They all would have had some
of
the stuff I listed."
Nothing in there about melting steel. Not even any howling.
Von Bailey
providing some evidence the floor trusses collapsed? Why don't you
prove that the columns were dependent on the floor trusses instead of
the concrete that was reinforcing them? Then explain why the concrete
(which did not melt) was turned to dust?
>
>
>
> >
> > > >Here's an article pointing out that the WTC towers were designed to
> > > >withstand just the type of crash that occured on 9/11 and why the
> > > >explinations given are not sufficient to explain what occured.
> > > >
> > > >http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1571_comment.php
> > >
> > > And the WTC *did* withstand the *impact* of the jets. Again, it was
> > > the uncontrolled fire raging (for over an hour) that buckled the steel
> > > to the point it could no longer support a load. The sprinkler systems
> > > were taken out by the planes.
> > >
> >
> > Except that the steel doesn't buckle in the manner in which it is
> > supposed to have done so wrt the WTC. The lower floors should not
> > have buckled regardless of what happened to those upper floors. And
> > there is NO EVIDENCE that the steel DID buckle in those upper floors
> > nor an explination of why IF it did buckle it went straight down
> > instead of toppling over to the weakened side at the sight of impact.
>
> see above, read it carefully, then try to assimilate the information
> contained there-in
Why, it's wrong and not justified with a shred of evidence? Are you
some guru who knows what happened regardless of the fact that the
experts can't explain it? Prove what you say is credible as I don't
take the word of people who display ignorance on a regular basis as
you do.
von
Von Bailey
> I work on the third story of a three story building and can see a
> tremendous amount of papers sitting on my wooden desk, both of which
> make up the fuel third of the "fire triangle." Add to that the
> carpeting, insulation, boy, flammable stuff everywhere. In a larger
> building, there are partition walls which, as far as I can tell, can
> burn. I haven't scientifically tested this, but as a former boy scout
> who set several campfires, I learned wood, paper, cardboard all burn.
> Warnings on other items that say "flammable" add to the theory. If
> you need any further convincing of whether flammables are in your
> office, you should test the theory in your office. Check with your
> supervisors first to make sure it's okay.
>
1) How did any of that stuff can become so hot as to melt steel
columns many floors below where such material is NOT burning.
2) Explain how since since the fires didn't cover entire floors on
either building why did the columns collapse evenly and not favoring
the side where the fire was obviously hotter and thus buckling those
columns faster (because of more heat) than the ones on the side of the
building NOT on fire.
3) Why were none of the features of a 700C fire present
Steel glowing red-hot
Extensive window breakage
Big bright emergent flames
Light smoke (not seen after first few minutes)
4) Explain why these buildings collapse as no other steel structure in
history destroyed because of fire.
5) Why the manner of heat conductivity of steel worked differently in
this case than in any other? Did the collision of the planes change
physics?
I wait for your answers.
> To make an assertion that the WTC attack was staged by our government
> without sufficent documentation to support your claim then to declaim
> practical logic defying your claim is ridiculous.
Which would explain why I never said as much. Questioning the
official version of events is not blaming the government for the
events. I have no reason to believe that our government concieved of
or perpetuated the events of 9/11. I also have no evidence that
points to anyone else conclusively either.
von
Mudda Lann Newz Servus
hey, you're the one claiming 'it couldn't happen that way'
YOU do the proving, I've got better things to do than post more info that
you will ignore (your preferred mode of denial)
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > >Here's an article pointing out that the WTC towers were designed to
> > > > >withstand just the type of crash that occured on 9/11 and why the
> > > > >explinations given are not sufficient to explain what occured.
> > > > >
> > > > >http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1571_comment.php
> > > >
> > > > And the WTC *did* withstand the *impact* of the jets. Again, it was
> > > > the uncontrolled fire raging (for over an hour) that buckled the
steel
> > > > to the point it could no longer support a load. The sprinkler
systems
> > > > were taken out by the planes.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Except that the steel doesn't buckle in the manner in which it is
> > > supposed to have done so wrt the WTC. The lower floors should not
> > > have buckled regardless of what happened to those upper floors. And
> > > there is NO EVIDENCE that the steel DID buckle in those upper floors
> > > nor an explination of why IF it did buckle it went straight down
> > > instead of toppling over to the weakened side at the sight of impact.
> >
> > see above, read it carefully, then try to assimilate the information
> > contained there-in
>
> Why, it's wrong and not justified with a shred of evidence? Are you
> some guru who knows what happened regardless of the fact that the
> experts can't explain it? Prove what you say is credible as I don't
> take the word of people who display ignorance on a regular basis as
> you do.
the ad hominem attack, the typical refuge of the uninformed who prefer to
stay that way
goodbye, loser
Von Bailey
guess if you said that the jolly green giant knocked them down I would
have to prove that false too. You insist on displaying your ignorance
to the world don't you. No wonder you post with a fake name.
von
Don Tootin'
You may end up waiting until I get a degree in thermodynamics with a
minor in architecture. Having neither, I am afraid I cannot address
your above questions. The only question I attempted to answer was the
only one I am qualified to, "what in the building was
combustible/flammable (synonymous in most lay-lexicon)?"
>
> > To make an assertion that the WTC attack was staged by our government
> > without sufficent documentation to support your claim then to declaim
> > practical logic defying your claim is ridiculous.
>
> Which would explain why I never said as much. Questioning the
> official version of events is not blaming the government for the
> events. I have no reason to believe that our government concieved of
> or perpetuated the events of 9/11. I also have no evidence that
> points to anyone else conclusively either.
>
You're right, and it was unfair of me to jump to that conclusion. I
apologize. At the same time, by bringing up these questions, it
suggests that you have your theories as to what was really behind the
death and destruction two years ago. Accountability for any
inaccuracies should be directed towards those who asserted the
official version. I think we can agree on that. It has been at least
implied on this thread that the Government provided the official
version. If they provided an inaccurate report, several in this
thread seem to have questioned whether those inaccuracies were
intentional. If so, why the "cover up?"
I have no evidence pointing to any individual or group over any other.
That's why I put my faith in forensics, in inspectors, in the other
experts involved in the post-disaster assessment, just as I trusted
the surgeon when he scoped my knee several years back. I'm not
entitled to the same information as I've not been trained in using
that information. I'm guessing most others in "alt-world" are in the
same boat.
Mudda Lann Newz Servus
that's your typical mode of denial, von
you are always asking 'racists' to prove a negative
kinda bites you in the kiester when someone tells YOU to do it, doesn't it ?
oh..........and post proff that your name is reallly 'von bailey'
Von Bailey
> > >
> > You make an assertion and I have to prove it false. Nice try. So I
> > guess if you said that the jolly green giant knocked them down I would
> > have to prove that false too. You insist on displaying your ignorance
> > to the world don't you. No wonder you post with a fake name.
>
> that's your typical mode of denial, von
>
> you are always asking 'racists' to prove a negative
>
That is a lie.
> kinda bites you in the kiester when someone tells YOU to do it, doesn't it ?
>
Don't know as it didn't happen. Are you speaking from experience?
von
Von Bailey
> >
> > > without sufficent documentation to support your claim then to declaim
> > > practical logic defying your claim is ridiculous.
> >
> > Which would explain why I never said as much. Questioning the
> > official version of events is not blaming the government for the
> > events. I have no reason to believe that our government concieved of
> > or perpetuated the events of 9/11. I also have no evidence that
> > points to anyone else conclusively either.
> >
> You're right, and it was unfair of me to jump to that conclusion. I
> apologize. At the same time, by bringing up these questions, it
> suggests that you have your theories as to what was really behind the
> death and destruction two years ago.
Actually I don't. I am aware only that what has been presented leaves
a lot of questions unanswered and unfortunately in most of the media
not even asked.
> Accountability for any
> inaccuracies should be directed towards those who asserted the
> official version. I think we can agree on that.
Yes. And I think it should be an public discussion where all credible
information is presented. The questions that I asked are questions
that effectively refute the official version of the events. That is
something that should be discussed just as carefully as the reality
that there was a lack of evidence to support a war in Iraq. Why these
things occured should hopefully come out in such an investigation. I
question the Bush Adminstrations lack of interest given the event, but
that doesn't assume guilt.
> It has been at least
> implied on this thread that the Government provided the official
> version. If they provided an inaccurate report, several in this
> thread seem to have questioned whether those inaccuracies were
> intentional. If so, why the "cover up?"
>
To appear competent and imply leadership where there was none of
either. They don't have to be covering up culpability in the blowing
up the buildings to be guilty of covering up something. I wasn't
particularly impressed with his powers of intellect prior to 9/11 and
I can't see the events of that day made him any more competent in the
least.
von
Von Bailey
> Seethis Pass <NotAn...@Maxivision.com> wrote in message news:<3939ov0rnl4lgdre5...@4ax.com>...
> > The appologists for this attrocity are all howling that burning desks
> > and paper melts steel.
>
> Really? I haven't seen anyone claim that. The question was asked:
> "What in your office is combustible?"
>
> My answer was:
>
> "My desk, table, chairs, bookcase, books, carpet, office door,
> clothing, and lots of paper. With a hot enough fire, I'd expect that
> the computers in here would burn, too. People also.
>
> "How many offices did the WTC contain? They all would have had some
> of the stuff I listed."
>
> Nothing in there about melting steel. Not even any howling.
>
that I was asking about things that would have contributed to the
collapse of the buildings as that was the context of the discussion.
Thus it appears disingenuous.
von
Von Bailey
> Von Bailey wrote:
>
> > > > > The New York Times is a piece of shit socialist rag.
> > > > > It always has been. Why would anybody search for
> > > > > the truth there?
> > > > >
> > > > Good point. I read several article in by reporter Judith Miller about
> > > > WMDs in Iraq prior and during the war. They all turned out to be
> > > > false but she still reports for them.
> > >
> > > That's a lie.
> >
> > What's a lie, that she reported them or that what she reported was a
> > lie?
>
> I'll type slowly for you, kornholer.
> The lie is your assertion that
> "They all turned out to be false".
> You're the liar, kornholer.
> See that was easy. Do you get it now?
>
Yes. You watch FOX for the majority of your information about the
world. Explains why you don't know the truth.
> > > Just because you are not capable of processing
> > > the information does not make them false.
> > >
> >
> > Your propensity to believe whatever crap supports your delusions
> > regardless of reality is hampering your ability to see clearly.
>
> I only read The Times in a pinch, kornholer.
> For entertainment.
>
Obviously. Comprehension for any other purpose is obviously above
your head.
> > However I am not the only person who finds holes in the reporting of
> > Ms. Miller. Her colleages in the media also question her veracity.
>
> > Blah, blah, blah...
>
> > Jayson Blair was only a fluke deviation. Miller strikes right at the
> > core of the regular functioning news machine.
>
> Why?
> Only dumbass kornholers take that rag seriously.
>
Which brings to question why you are referencing me that way since I
don't take the NY Times seriously. The Times was, as I pointed out in
the section that you deleted, one of the main perpetuators of the lies
wrt the Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL). If it weren't for the lies
propogated by FOX that far outshadowed the lies of the Times more
people may have noticed.
> > > All of his lies were quite provable.
> > >
> > So are Miller'. The aluminum tubes were not for enriching uranium.
> > Mr. Saeed's (Saddam's bomb builder) statements about the ability of
> > Saddam to create an atomic bomb were not true or credible. The US
> > intelligence agencies did not agree that Saddam was able to build a
> > bomb. The Iraqi scientist that was pointing out to MET where the CW
> > were buried was pointing at sand and nothing else. All reported by Ms.
> > Miller, all false.
>
> Says you and a couple other Hate America Firsters.
> That = meaningless.
>
...to a person such as yourself with your head in your ass.
>
> > > > that
> > > > facilitated an unjust war is still there and no articles publicly
> > > > denouncing her reporting.
> > >
> > > Apparently your opinion is based on
> > > the words of murder Ted Kennedy and
> > > the other lie telling, hate mongering,
> > > members of the demonkraps socialist party.
> > >
> > I was calling Bush a liar before Ted Kennedy had the balls to do so.
>
> You have more balls than Ted Kennedy. Congrats.
> You now have the rest of humanity to catch up to.
>
The balls you have hanging out of your mouth attached to the penis in
it are not yours, they belong to someone else so counting them as
yours despite your emotional attachment would be wrong.
von
Nada, John
> > > > That's a lie.
> > >
> > > What's a lie, that she reported them or that what she reported was a
> > > lie?
> >
> > I'll type slowly for you, kornholer.
> > The lie is your assertion that
> > "They all turned out to be false".
> > You're the liar, kornholer.
> > See that was easy. Do you get it now?
> >
>
> Yes. You watch FOX for the majority of your information about the
> world.
Wrong, von kornholer.
> Explains why you don't know the truth.
Whatever, von kornholer.
> > > > Just because you are not capable of processing
> > > > the information does not make them false.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Your propensity to believe whatever crap supports your delusions
> > > regardless of reality is hampering your ability to see clearly.
> >
> > I only read The Times in a pinch, kornholer.
> > For entertainment.
> >
> Obviously. Comprehension for any other purpose is obviously above
> your head.
Why would I go to the Times for the truth?
I've a better chance on Nickelodeon.
If you want to waste your time, well,
knock your dumbass out.
> > > However I am not the only person who finds holes in the reporting of
> > > Ms. Miller. Her colleages in the media also question her veracity.
> >
> > > Blah, blah, blah...
> >
> > > Jayson Blair was only a fluke deviation. Miller strikes right at the
> > > core of the regular functioning news machine.
> >
> > Why?
> > Only dumbass kornholers take that rag seriously.
> >
> Which brings to question why you are referencing me that way since I
> don't take the NY Times seriously.
Make up your mind, kornholer.
> The Times was, as I pointed out in
> the section that you deleted, one of the main perpetuators of the lies
> wrt the Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL).
The Times lies about everything, dumbass.
Why waste your time with the Times?
> If it weren't for the lies
> propogated by FOX that far outshadowed the lies of the Times more
> people may have noticed.
Oh! Bad FOX! CNN good!
> > > > All of his lies were quite provable.
> > > >
> > > So are Miller'. The aluminum tubes were not for enriching uranium.
> > > Mr. Saeed's (Saddam's bomb builder) statements about the ability of
> > > Saddam to create an atomic bomb were not true or credible. The US
> > > intelligence agencies did not agree that Saddam was able to build a
> > > bomb. The Iraqi scientist that was pointing out to MET where the CW
> > > were buried was pointing at sand and nothing else. All reported by Ms.
> > > Miller, all false.
> >
> > Says you and a couple other Hate America Firsters.
> > That = meaningless.
> >
> ...to a person such as yourself with your head in your ass.
Face it, kornholer.
You are irrelevant and impotent.
Usenet is here for you:
Midnight basketball for socialist kornholers.
> > > > > that
> > > > > facilitated an unjust war is still there and no articles publicly
> > > > > denouncing her reporting.
> > > >
> > > > Apparently your opinion is based on
> > > > the words of murder Ted Kennedy and
> > > > the other lie telling, hate mongering,
> > > > members of the demonkraps socialist party.
> > > >
> > > I was calling Bush a liar before Ted Kennedy had the balls to do so.
> >
> > You have more balls than Ted Kennedy. Congrats.
> > You now have the rest of humanity to catch up to.
> >
> The balls you have hanging out of your mouth attached to the penis in
> it are not yours, they belong to someone else so counting them as
> yours despite your emotional attachment would be wrong.
Great comeback, kornholer.
Keep plucking away.
You may stumble upon something vaguely interesting of funny.
Unknown
wrote:
>VoiceOfReason <> wrote in message news:<75o6ovcchrpn8ter1...@4ax.com>...
>> On 7 Oct 2003 08:24:50 -0700, red...@MailAndNews.com (Von Bailey)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >VoiceOfReason <> wrote in message news:<slf0ovs8e3dtoqtmo...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 07:14:56 -0400, "EagleEye" <eagl...@omega.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Now in hindsight, take a good close look again at the fires in the towers,
>> >> >and then later as they come crashing stright down.
>> >> >
>> >> >Did you know that never, EVER before in the history of large highrise steel
>> >> >structured buildings that not one has ever collapsed due to fire?
>> >>
>> >> In a nutshell, they came because of shortcuts taken in constructing
>> >> the building, and fireproofing it, coupled with the fact that each
>> >> floor was packed with tons of combustible office equipment and
>> >> furniture.
>> >>
>> >You have something to back this up with? You are notorious for coming
>> >up with creative non-supportable solutions for things that you can't
>> >explain with evidence. Where is the study that supports your claim
>> >about combustible office "equipment and funiture"? It's ridiculous on
>> >it's face!
>>
>> Hell no, it makes a lot of sense.
>
>It makes sense that two cups with the same amount of water in them
>with the only difference being that one has steaming hot water in it
>and the other has cold water in it that the cold water will turn to
>ice faster than the hot water. However, given that the steam coming
>off the hot water is actually water leaving the cup, less water will
>actually have to be frozen in the cup with the hot water and therefore
>the hot water left will freeze faster than the cold water. There's a
>lot of detail that may change that like the actual tempeture of the
>hot and cold water, but in general it works out as described.
Relevance to what happened inside the WTC on 9/11?
>That's why there are people who do scientific studies of events
>instead assuming stuff because "it makes lot of sense". Just because
>it "makes a lot of sense" doesn't mean that it isn't wrong.
When qualified, professional structural engineers come up scenarios, I
have to respect that. More than yer 2 cups routine.
>> As one who lives in the NYC area,
>> there have numerous studies and interviews of structural engineers
>> over the past 2 years, including those who worked on its construction
>> 30 years ago. Many felt that what kept the fires going long enough
>> was all the carpeting, furniture, equipment that you'd find in any
>> modern office. Had the fires burned out sooner, the trusses might
>> have held up, instead of buckling, which had a domino effect, as one
>> floor crashed onto the one below it, pushing that one down, etc.
>>
>
>So all any of them has is a *guess* based on the fact that no one was
>given the ability to sift through the rubble in order to do a
>forensics analysis of the building. These 'studies' you refer to are
>all just guesses which in itself questionable. Why, in one of the
>most horrific incidents of american history was there no detailed
>analysis of the crime scene?
Because there wasn't much left to the crime scene when everything came
a tumbling down.
>Again, there isn't a shred of evidence to support the assumptions in
>these reports and they are contridicted by structural engineers all
>over the country.
Nope.
>> >Also, your claims about shortcuts taken in constructing the building
>> >is falacious also. Have ANYTHING to support that statement besides
>> >what you believe?
>>
>> Again, there are allegations, particularly when the fireproofing was
>> redone a few years ago (after the 1993 bombing) that there was
>> "skimping" going on.
>>
>> No, I don't have any URL's handy, but if you really must know, just
>> search the NY Times. Again, they've run countless stories about what
>> may have happened inside there that day.
>
>So as usual all we have is your impressions as you can supply nothing
>to back up your words.
If I'd have known ya were going to play yer usual games, I would have
saved them URL's.
Unknown
<mudd...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"Von Bailey" <red...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
>news:c1c1301f.03100...@posting.google.com...
>> VoiceOfReason <> wrote in message
>news:<30p6ov4j9j2ihdb08...@4ax.com>...
>> > On 7 Oct 2003 09:03:12 -0700, red...@MailAndNews.com (Von Bailey)
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >wol...@nospamjoimail.com (wolf2ii) wrote in message
>news:<3f82922a...@news2.myjoi.net>...
>> > >> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 07:14:56 -0400, "EagleEye" <eagl...@omega.org>
>> > >> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >Now in hindsight, take a good close look again at the fires in the
>towers,
>> > >> >and then later as they come crashing stright down.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Did you know that never, EVER before in the history of large
>highrise steel
>> > >> >structured buildings that not one has ever collapsed due to fire?
>> there be such in office space? What in your office is combustible?
>>
>> > The floors in the immediate vicinity of the hit were no
>> > doubt vaporized, and the floors above were the ones that buckled
>> > ultimately, coming down on one another in a domino effect.
>> >
>> Which is not how it was supposed to happen. The floors below, which
>> had withstood the weight of those upper floors for 30 years should
>> have continued to do so unless they too had been weakened. But there
>> was nothing (that was reported) that explains why those floors
>> buckled.
>
>Once again, 'von' shows how selective listening shapes his opinion.
>
>The columns (vertical members) depended upon the floor trusses (horizontal
>members) to maintain their spacing and keep them from bowing due to the
>weight above
>
>once the fire weakened the floor trusses to where they melted and sagged,
>there was nothing to provide lateral support for the columns........and they
>bowed and collapsed
>
>there, that isn't so difficult to understand, is it ?
>
>
>
>
>>
>> > >Here's an article pointing out that the WTC towers were designed to
>> > >withstand just the type of crash that occured on 9/11 and why the
>> > >explinations given are not sufficient to explain what occured.
>> > >
>> > >http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1571_comment.php
>> >
>> > And the WTC *did* withstand the *impact* of the jets. Again, it was
>> > the uncontrolled fire raging (for over an hour) that buckled the steel
>> > to the point it could no longer support a load. The sprinkler systems
>> > were taken out by the planes.
>> >
>>
>> Except that the steel doesn't buckle in the manner in which it is
>> supposed to have done so wrt the WTC. The lower floors should not
>> have buckled regardless of what happened to those upper floors. And
>> there is NO EVIDENCE that the steel DID buckle in those upper floors
>> nor an explination of why IF it did buckle it went straight down
>> instead of toppling over to the weakened side at the sight of impact.
>
>see above, read it carefully, then try to assimilate the information
>contained there-in
It IS for Mr Bailey and a couple of others here.
wolf2ii
wrote:
When I was very young, my father who, own a tool and die shop, gave me
a demo of why I should keep my hands out of the machines when I was
around the presses that stampped-out flat metal into useful things--he
put a concrete block in one-guess what-----instant dust--the dust shot
out and covered the entire room.
Wolf
Holger Dansk
wrote:
>Wake up American. You've been HOODWINKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No we weren't. Not anyone knew that the buildings would fall. That
was a big surprise to everyone including the terrorist and/or Al
Caeda.
That's the reason the firemen were not heroes. None of them thought
the building was going to fall. When they entered the building on the
ground floor they were about 80 floors from the fire. That's almost
the length of three football fields.
Firemen who are heroes are those in LaGrange or Carrollton, etc., who
go into a 3 or 4 story building, part of which has already fallen, in
order to save someone, knowing that the building will fall but not
knowing when it will fall.
Holger
Fly free and happy beyond birthdays and across
forever, and we'll meet now and then when we wish,
in the midst of the one celebration that never can
end.
-from "There's No Such Place As Far Away"
by Richard Bach
Von Bailey
> On 9 Oct 2003 09:37:10 -0700, red...@MailAndNews.com (Von Bailey)
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The columns (vertical members) depended upon the floor trusses (horizontal
> >> members) to maintain their spacing and keep them from bowing due to the
> >> weight above
> >>
> >> once the fire weakened the floor trusses to where they melted and sagged,
> >> there was nothing to provide lateral support for the columns........and
> >>
> >> there, that isn't so difficult to understand, is it ?
> >>
> >Now why don't you prove you know what you are talking about by
> >providing some evidence the floor trusses collapsed? Why don't you
> >prove that the columns were dependent on the floor trusses instead of
> >the concrete that was reinforcing them? Then explain why the concrete
> >(which did not melt) was turned to dust?
>
> When I was very young, my father who, own a tool and die shop, gave me
> a demo of why I should keep my hands out of the machines when I was
> around the presses that stampped-out flat metal into useful things--he
> put a concrete block in one-guess what-----instant dust--the dust shot
> out and covered the entire room.
>
>
press that may be relevant. However,given that the WTC was not a
block of concrete nor was it put in a press, I fail to see the
relevance.
von
Von Bailey
> >That's why there are people who do scientific studies of events
> >instead assuming stuff because "it makes lot of sense". Just because
> >it "makes a lot of sense" doesn't mean that it isn't wrong.
>
> When qualified, professional structural engineers come up scenarios, I
> have to respect that. More than yer 2 cups routine.
>
Find one that says that they can conclusively explain what happened.
Why a building using steel never fell like that before because of
fire? Why steel melted or buckled at heat levels far below the
necessary tempeture? Along with the multitude of other things not
explained by the guesses.
> >> As one who lives in the NYC area,
> >> there have numerous studies and interviews of structural engineers
> >> over the past 2 years, including those who worked on its construction
> >> 30 years ago. Many felt that what kept the fires going long enough
> >> was all the carpeting, furniture, equipment that you'd find in any
> >> modern office. Had the fires burned out sooner, the trusses might
> >> have held up, instead of buckling, which had a domino effect, as one
> >> floor crashed onto the one below it, pushing that one down, etc.
> >>
> >
> >So all any of them has is a *guess* based on the fact that no one was
> >given the ability to sift through the rubble in order to do a
> >forensics analysis of the building. These 'studies' you refer to are
> >all just guesses which in itself questionable. Why, in one of the
> >most horrific incidents of american history was there no detailed
> >analysis of the crime scene?
>
> Because there wasn't much left to the crime scene when everything came
> a tumbling down.
>
What happened to it? Did it go into some other dimension? I was
under the impression (given about six months of news coverage) that
there were crews cleaning up something that was supposed to be the
remenants of the destruction of the buildings. Are you saying it all
disappeared?
> >Again, there isn't a shred of evidence to support the assumptions in
> >these reports and they are contridicted by structural engineers all
> >over the country.
>
> Nope.
>
Well, there we have your non-impressive argument again. Always fall
back on denial. It gives you something to say without really saying
anything.
> >> >Also, your claims about shortcuts taken in constructing the building
> >> >is falacious also. Have ANYTHING to support that statement besides
> >> >what you believe?
> >>
> >> Again, there are allegations, particularly when the fireproofing was
> >> redone a few years ago (after the 1993 bombing) that there was
> >> "skimping" going on.
> >>
> >> No, I don't have any URL's handy, but if you really must know, just
> >> search the NY Times. Again, they've run countless stories about what
> >> may have happened inside there that day.
> >
> >So as usual all we have is your impressions as you can supply nothing
> >to back up your words.
>
> If I'd have known ya were going to play yer usual games, I would have
> saved them URL's.
What happened? Did they disappear along with the residue of the WTC
buildings?
von
r_c_brown
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. Someone in this thread was
expressing disbelief that there would be anything in an office that
could burn, which struck me as quite naive. Therefore, when the
question "what in your office is combustible?" was asked, I answered.
The person who then replied constructed an outrageous strawman,
claiming that I am an "appologist" for this "attrocity", and that I
was "howling" about how burning desks and paper could melt steel.
I am not the disingenuous one here.
>
> von
John E. Jaku-Hing
> Von Kornholer wrote:
>
> > > > > That's a lie.
> > > >
> > > > What's a lie, that she reported them or that what she reported was a
> > > > lie?
> > >
> > > I'll type slowly for you, kornholer.
> > > The lie is your assertion that
> > > "They all turned out to be false".
> > > You're the liar, kornholer.
> > > See that was easy. Do you get it now?
> > >
> >
> > Yes. You watch FOX for the majority of your information about the
> > world.
>
> Wrong, von kornholer.
Funny...
>
> > Explains why you don't know the truth.
>
> Whatever, von kornholer.
Funny...
>
> > > > > Just because you are not capable of processing
> > > > > the information does not make them false.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your propensity to believe whatever crap supports your delusions
> > > > regardless of reality is hampering your ability to see clearly.
> > >
> > > I only read The Times in a pinch, kornholer.
> > > For entertainment.
> > >
> > Obviously. Comprehension for any other purpose is obviously above
> > your head.
>
> Why would I go to the Times for the truth?
> I've a better chance on Nickelodeon.
> If you want to waste your time, well,
> knock your dumbass out.
The truth is out there...
>
> > > > However I am not the only person who finds holes in the reporting of
> > > > Ms. Miller. Her colleages in the media also question her veracity.
>
> > > > Blah, blah, blah...
>
> > > > Jayson Blair was only a fluke deviation. Miller strikes right at the
> > > > core of the regular functioning news machine.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > > Only dumbass kornholers take that rag seriously.
> > >
> > Which brings to question why you are referencing me that way since I
> > don't take the NY Times seriously.
>
> Make up your mind, kornholer.
Corn is good.
>
> > The Times was, as I pointed out in
> > the section that you deleted, one of the main perpetuators of the lies
> > wrt the Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL).
>
> The Times lies about everything, dumbass.
> Why waste your time with the Times?
Time for the Times
Johnny Smasher!
KStahl
>
> "Nada, John" <sha...@gotemon.com> wrote in message news:<3F872AD8...@gotemon.com>...
> > Keep plucking away.
> > You may stumble upon something vaguely interesting of funny.
>
> Johnny Smasher!
Look it up in the archives. He uses that same phrase whenever he cannot
come up with something original. It is one of about only five phrases he
knows. He just hopes that no one will notice when he repeats himself.
John E. Jaku-Hing
That was my 5 year old son. I read through him, and the only two
pedophiles who fell for his ramblings were yourself and Nada, John.
It's good that I don't know where you are, or I'd tear you limb from
limb for your perverse desires.
Nada, John
>
> KStahl <kts...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3F8B4633...@yahoo.com>...
> > "John E. Jaku-Hing" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Nada, John" <sha...@gotemon.com> wrote in message news:<3F872AD8...@gotemon.com>...
> > > > Great comeback, kornholer.
> > > > Keep plucking away.
> > > > You may stumble upon something vaguely interesting of funny.
> > >
> > > Johnny Smasher!
> >
> > Look it up in the archives. He uses that same phrase whenever he cannot
> > come up with something original. It is one of about only five phrases he
> > knows. He just hopes that no one will notice when he repeats himself.
>
> That was my 5 year old son. I read through him,
Do you wok the dog with him?
> and the only two
> pedophiles who fell for his ramblings were yourself and Nada, John.
> It's good that I don't know where you are, or I'd tear you limb from
> limb for your perverse desires.
Get him, Bruce Ree.
I'd enjoy two pussyboys in a cat fight.
Laura Bush - America's kid-killer
> Now in hindsight, take a good close look again at the fires in the towers,
> and then later as they come crashing stright down.
>
> Did you know that never, EVER before in the history of large highrise steel
> been fires sure, and way worse then in the north and sout tower of the WTC,
> and worse than the one in the WTC7, thought it wasn't hit by a plane or
> significantly damaged by falling debris. Nope, they came down in a
> controlled demolition, and to company which carted away the debris?
> Ironically named Controlled Demolition, the same which handled the Federal
> Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.
>
I don't think anyone believes the official story about the WTC. As
has been pointed out many times on this NG, jet fuel is just kerosene
and kerosene does not melt steel. And even if it did, the towers would
not collapse straight down as in a perfect demo job. But the media
refuses to press the issue and the invertebrate... i mean democrat
party does the same.
John E. Jaku-Hing
Let's meet for a good old fashioned braul, you liberal pedophile.
Say, 10/24, 7:30 pm, some rest stop TBD on I-295 in NJ, pussyboy?
Nada, John
OK, Bruce Ree, my kung fu better than your kung fu.
Bring the boy.
Eagle Eye
"Judy Diarya" a/k/a "Pride of America" a/k/a "Laura Bush -
America's kid-killer" <pigfa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I don't think anyone believes the official story about the WTC.
Apparently you think "the jews" did it.
We don't have to choose between blacks and whites. But thanks
to bush we now have to choose between jews and arabs and i say
it's in america's best interests to support the arabs. Everyone
but you knows the jews were behind 9-11.
-- "Judy Diarya" a/k/a "Laura Bush - America's kid-killer"
2/26/2002
=====
EE
Latine loqui coactus sum.
John E. Jaku-Hing
John E. Jaku-Hing
Commie pedophile. You're also a coward.
Andy Walton
Bush - America's kid-killer <pigfa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't think anyone believes the official story about the WTC. As
> has been pointed out many times on this NG, jet fuel is just kerosene
> and kerosene does not melt steel.
For the umpteenth time: NO ONE BUT THE CONSPIRACY LOONS IS SAYING THE
FIRES MELTED STEEL.
> And even if it did, the towers would
> not collapse straight down as in a perfect demo job.
You say that based on what expertise in structural engineering? You
expected it to keel over like a felled tree?
In fact, you would expect skyscrapers to fall straight down or nearly
so. Don't you think that maybe, somewhere along the way, the engineers
who build skyscrapers gave a little thought to the possibility of the
buildings falling on a few hundred thousand people?
--
"Five tacos, one taco burger. Do you know where the American Dream is?"
-- Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
--------------------------------------------------
Andy Walton * http://atticus.home.mindspring.com/