View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed
User1
collapsed
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm
The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they
were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when
the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some
extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers
were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are
approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's.
Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and
weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in
the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the
durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that
reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470
°F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC
the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel
columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102
minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10
to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps
1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a
fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel
constructions.
In mid-February in Madrid, the Windsor Tower (see above) burned for over 20
hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but
even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and
long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors. If either
of the WTC tower had started to collapse because of fires the collapse would
have been limited to only a few of the floors and then stopped.
The impossibility of a gravitational collapse is closer seen in other
documents. A collapse would produce large pieces, and does not explain
reports of fine dust from concrete, huge amounts of dust and pieces of steel
ejected outwards.
Destruction of the towers by explosions is clear according to the
photographs and reports of the eye witnesses. In the picture below, a range
of cutting charges have just exploded in the down left sector and a typical
white cloud is formed outwards from the wall. Down right, explosions are
seen as well. Even a flame is seen.
In video tapes taken of the so-called collapses of the WTC, more explosions
of these cutting charges can be seen. The explosions advance quickly, with a
gap of a couple of floors, cutting the strong steel pillars in the outer
wall. The explosions are timed so that it appears that the tower collapses
occur in the same timing as in a gravitational collapse. The explosions are
not completely synchronized in timing, probably a few charges are triggered
by radio, and other charges explode out of the impulses of one of these
charges (infrared, pressure wave).
More challenging problems to the demolition men, however, were the central
cores of the buildings and the 47 steel pillars more robust than the ones on
the outer rounds. The pillars of the central cores were made of steel even
100 + 100 mm thick, thicker than the side armours of a battle tank. Cutting
those, even with explosives, is extremely difficult. One would need to
surround the whole pillars, every single pillar on every floor intended to
get blasted, with powerful cutting charges. These charges would have needed
to be placed in such a way that the users of the skyscrapers could not
notice these preparations.
As seen in the following pictures, the cores of the towers were not
distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern
thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb. In the picture below, a
hydrogen bomb explosion, the bomb having been placed in the cellar and
directed to the core, has reached the roof of the tower and the upper parts
of the outer walls. On its way up the waves of fire pressure partially
penetrated about 100 floors of concrete and steel. Over ten million degrees
of heat caused by a hydrogen bomb sublimised all water within the concrete
in a moment. Water exploded extremely quickly into 24-fold volume and
totally pulverized the concrete. Even people and computers that were in the
buildings disappeared turning into heat and light. That is why almost
nothing of them was found in the ruins.
Burning radiation is absorbed in steel so quickly that steel heats up
immediately over its melting point 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F) and above its
boiling point around 3000 C (approx. 5430 °F). In the pictures down below,
super hot groups of steel pillars and columns, torn from wall by pressure
wave, are sublimized. They immediately turn into a vaporized form, binding
heat as quickly as possible. Bursts upwards, even visible in the picture
below, are not possible for a gravitational collapse or for cutting charges
which are used horizontally.
Storax Sedan 104 Kt shallow underground
In the upper picture the explosion is in theory 100 times stronger than in
the picture below, but in practice the difference is only four times due to
the capability of direction of the small hydrogen bomb.
In the picture at the right, the brown shades caused by a hydrogen bomb are
seen, while the top of the tower that is already collapsing is breaking down
and the posture straightens up as the hydrogen bomb pulverized the core and
it lost all its resistance. The piles point the blasts of the cutting
charges. (Gehue plate 12)
Steel pillars are turned into dust.
Extremely hot, sublimating pieces are not created with many methods.
For comparison, pictures of subterranean nuclear explosions where the
explosion is blasting onto surface and into the air:
Ess1.2 Kt
WTC 2
Banberry 10 Kt underground
Radioactivity in air creates shades of brown. (The subterranean nuke in the
picture on the right is 10 times stronger than the small nuke on the left.)
This is the reason why the FBI did not search the crime scene. Ground zeros
of nuclear weapons are a health risk and belong to the FEMA.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm
Hurt
> The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they
> were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when
> the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some
> extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers
That's right. It was OUR military industrial complex bombing the hell
out of those buildings. I don't know exactly why they did it but, I'm
sure they had their reasons. If they made some mistakes, the people
involved, who you are probably not one of, settled those matters in
court. THAT'S THE SYSTEM! SO GO SMOKE SOMETHING AND THINK ABOUT IT
FOR A WHILE. Remember, you're either with US or against US. Last
time I checked I live in the USofA.
Your Name Here=Harvey
hurt_beyo...@yahoo.com says...
Try watching "The Great Conspiracy - The 9-11 News Special You Never Saw"
to realise that 9-11 was not the first of such conspiracies presented
to the American public - in which the truth did not come out of.
Meaning that the US government doesn't really care about the public it
serves, they'd rather profit from their ignorance.
Harvey
Hurt
> Meaning that the US government doesn't really care about the public it
> serves, they'd rather profit from their ignorance.
Hey, have you ever heard the saying ' What's good for IBM... or was
that GM... well, either or, is good for the country'. I'm not sure if
greed is good, but profit certainly is. Profit is progress. And
before you say 'Fuck Progress' you'll have to hand over your MP3
player, big screen TV, PC; etcetera, etcetera. Get the picture chum.
It's a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. The brains at the top do the thinking
for the whole body, not any one cell, or small group of cells.
bully
Phasmatis
American Century"; is anyone here familiar with it? For those who
aren't, it is a neoconservative agenda that, in black-and-white text,
calls for a second Pearl Harbor. (Like 9/11, Pearl Harbor had clear
evidence pointing to it, and was ignored.)
Another good source of information: the film "Hijacking Catastrophe" -
it has a subtitle that escapes me for the moment, but this should be
enough for you to go on.
Frank F. Matthews
comment. What is a "Military Expert" supposed to know about structural
collapse. Even demolition experts have trouble predicting the result of
controlled demolitions. That is why their insurance is so expensive.
User1 wrote:
> View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center
> collapsed
>
snip
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
OrionCA wrote:
>
> The NIST report coming out in March officially and comprehensively
> refutes all kook konspiracy theories. You'll look like even more of a
> fool afterwards.
You're the one who looks like a fool. No question our govt lied us
into the iraq war and that proves monstrous conspiracies do occur in
america. Anyone who takes the gover-media word on 9-11 is a moron.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Frank F. Matthews wrote:
> It would make more sense to try to find a structural engineer to
> comment. What is a "Military Expert" supposed to know about structural
> collapse. Even demolition experts have trouble predicting the result of
> controlled demolitions. That is why their insurance is so expensive.
WTF does george bush know about structural collapse??? And yet most
americans take his word that the collapses were due to planes!! Now
there's stupid for you.
Phasmatis
personnel, are also structural engineers. We don't know whether User1
has knowledge in this field or not; thus, while it is approrpriate to
challenge his view on 9/11, it is not a basis to discredit him. I also
wonder, Mister Matthews, if you are a stuctural engineer (or know one)
and can refute his statement with tangible evidence. Also, his
information is directly copied from a separate website; this may not be
his owrk in the first place.
My persepective: I have seen documentaries on exactly why the towers
fell. The scientific evidence provided does seem to make sense: the
steel got overheated, and floors collapsed from the inside of the
tower, causing top-heavy structural collapse. However, the conspiracy
theory is not entirely unfounded; the collapse of the towers did look
an awful lot like a controlled implosion of the building. Even if this
particular piece of the theory doesn't fit, we do know for certain
there was clear, connectable evidence provided to the government to
conclude that an attack on skyscrapers using airplanes for weapons
could happen at an imminent time. This evidence was laid to the side,
and rarely reached top-ranking officials. (There is a comical animated
short online called "USS Enron's Prize," which, while obviously
intended to be satirical, does a fine job of showing how easy it was to
connect the dots and see the picture...plus another little surprise at
the end!) And the pictures which User1's website shows of the collapse
are certainly a point of interest.
I'm done for now, but I'd love to hear what else people here would like
to say...
Ragnar
> View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center
> collapsed
>
> http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm
>
> The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they
> were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when
> the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some
> extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers
> were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are
> approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's.
Actually, the 707 manufactured at the time of the WTC design only
weighed about 250,000 lbs loaded. The 767, on the other hand, weighs
about 395,000 lbs fully loaded. Thats hardly "approximately of the same
size".
> Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and
> weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in
> the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the
> durability of a steel trunk.
Kerosene wasn't the only thing burning.
> In mid-February in Madrid, the Windsor Tower (see above) burned for
over 20
> hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but
> even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and
> long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors. If either
> of the WTC tower had started to collapse because of fires the collapse would
> have been limited to only a few of the floors and then stopped.
Umm, the Windsor tower wasn't the same design as the WTC. Show me a
fire in a building of the same design and you might have a point.
> Destruction of the towers by explosions is clear according to the
> photographs and reports of the eye witnesses.
Show me the wiring. Show me fragments of detonators. Show me debris
subjected to chemical explosives. And show me the teams of workers who
would have had to run hundreds of miles of detonator wires and implant
thousands of pounds of explosives. And the teams who would have had to
go in and weaken the structure ahead of time. Ever seen a building set
up to be imploded? Takes several weeks and lots of labor.
> As seen in the following pictures, the cores of the towers were not
> distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern
> thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb.
And where is the radiation?
TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com
And those who follow David Icke are rocket scientists? ROTFLMAO!
Phasmatis
Ragnar wrote:
> User1 wrote:
> > View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center
> > collapsed
> >
> > http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm
> >
> > The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they
> > were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when
> > the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some
> > extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers
> > were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are
> > approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's.
>
> Actually, the 707 manufactured at the time of the WTC design only
> weighed about 250,000 lbs loaded. The 767, on the other hand, weighs
> about 395,000 lbs fully loaded. Thats hardly "approximately of the same
> size".
According to the website whatreallyhappened.com, your information is
inaccurate. Here are the exact statistics they provide:
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000
pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000
pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
As you can see, the Boeing 767 is NOT significantly larger; while it
does carry extra weight and 980 more gallons of fuel, this only serves
to slow it down and decrease its maximum altitude in comparison to its
sister 707 plane. Also, the weight of an object can not be used as a
measure for its size, but rather its mass, which is a COMBINATION of
size and weight.
> > Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and
> > weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in
> > the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the
> > durability of a steel trunk.
>
> Kerosene wasn't the only thing burning.
Okay. What else was burning?
> > In mid-February in Madrid, the Windsor Tower (see above) burned for
> > over 20
> > hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but
> > even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and
> > long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors. If either
> > of the WTC tower had started to collapse because of fires the collapse would
> > have been limited to only a few of the floors and then stopped.
>
> Umm, the Windsor tower wasn't the same design as the WTC. Show me a
> fire in a building of the same design and you might have a point.
True; the WIndsor Tower has a truss infrastructure, a design famous for
its strength. The WTC was built using a vertical-rod design, according
to another post here; I have yet to see any comparative statistics on
its structural strength - or, for that matter, its design.
> > Destruction of the towers by explosions is clear according to the
> > photographs and reports of the eye witnesses.
>
> Show me the wiring. Show me fragments of detonators. Show me debris
> subjected to chemical explosives. And show me the teams of workers who
> would have had to run hundreds of miles of detonator wires and implant
> thousands of pounds of explosives. And the teams who would have had to
> go in and weaken the structure ahead of time. Ever seen a building set
> up to be imploded? Takes several weeks and lots of labor.
I admit this is hearsay, but I've heard stories about people in white
suits ferrying material into the WTC for months before the attack took
place. Also, using computers and satellite networks, one could
theoretically detonate implosives by remote, AND opt to not detonate
implosives placed above the damaged floors. Any fragments of
detonators, if found at all, would likely be posessed by government
authorities before word got out; reports of chemicals found on the
debris, if ever filed or even looked for, would also be confiscated.
(Much of the debris was likely junked en masse anyway.) The note about
"weakening the structure ahead of time" is noteworthy, though.
> > As seen in the following pictures, the cores of the towers were not
> > distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern
> > thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb.
>
> And where is the radiation?
Good point. But if the H-bomb produces a small enough amount of power,
less of the dangerous radiation would be produced in consequence; n'est
pas? Also, like I said before, any conclusive tests or reports on tests
discovering radiation in the area would be confiscated by the
government. Such is an integral part of a cover-up. Finally, the people
who wrote this information may be wrong on the kind of detonator that
was used; while an H-bomb could certainly ensure major damage to a
steel beam, a lesser form of implosive or explosive may also be
effective enough to do the job.
Vandar
The towers were designed to withstand an impact from a 707 in an
emergency situation, meaning slowing to land and/or low on fuel.
That said, the towers did withstand the impact of a 767 at cruising
speed with sufficient fuel for a cross-country flight.
>>>Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and
>>>weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in
>>>the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the
>>>durability of a steel trunk.
>>
>>Kerosene wasn't the only thing burning.
>
>
> Okay. What else was burning?
Paper, carpeting, sheetrock, wood, insulation, etc. They were office
buildings.
>>>In mid-February in Madrid, the Windsor Tower (see above) burned for
>>>over 20
>>>hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but
>>>even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and
>>>long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors. If either
>>>of the WTC tower had started to collapse because of fires the collapse would
>>>have been limited to only a few of the floors and then stopped.
>>
>>Umm, the Windsor tower wasn't the same design as the WTC. Show me a
>>fire in a building of the same design and you might have a point.
>
>
> True; the WIndsor Tower has a truss infrastructure, a design famous for
> its strength. The WTC was built using a vertical-rod design, according
> to another post here; I have yet to see any comparative statistics on
> its structural strength - or, for that matter, its design.
>
>
>> > Destruction of the towers by explosions is clear according to the
>>
>>>photographs and reports of the eye witnesses.
>>
>>Show me the wiring. Show me fragments of detonators. Show me debris
>>subjected to chemical explosives. And show me the teams of workers who
>>would have had to run hundreds of miles of detonator wires and implant
>>thousands of pounds of explosives. And the teams who would have had to
>>go in and weaken the structure ahead of time. Ever seen a building set
>>up to be imploded? Takes several weeks and lots of labor.
>
>
> I admit this is hearsay, but I've heard stories about people in white
> suits ferrying material into the WTC for months before the attack took
> place.
Of the thousands upon thousands of people who did business in those
buildings every day, I've seen exactly one person make such a claim.
> Also, using computers and satellite networks, one could
> theoretically detonate implosives by remote, AND opt to not detonate
> implosives placed above the damaged floors. Any fragments of
> detonators, if found at all, would likely be posessed by government
> authorities before word got out; reports of chemicals found on the
> debris, if ever filed or even looked for, would also be confiscated.
> (Much of the debris was likely junked en masse anyway.) The note about
> "weakening the structure ahead of time" is noteworthy, though.
The problem is that the collapses of the towers did not resemble a
controlled demolition in any way.
Controlled demolitions initiate the collapse from the base of the
structure, preceeded by very loud reports throughout the building, with
the bulk of the structure falling within the building's footprint.
The WTC towers collapsed from the top with no loud reports throughout
the building, the base of the strongest section (the core) still intact
after the collapse, and debris ejected for blocks.
>>>As seen in the following pictures, the cores of the towers were not
>>>distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern
>>>thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb.
>>
>>And where is the radiation?
>
>
> Good point. But if the H-bomb produces a small enough amount of power,
> less of the dangerous radiation would be produced in consequence; n'est
> pas? Also, like I said before, any conclusive tests or reports on tests
> discovering radiation in the area would be confiscated by the
> government. Such is an integral part of a cover-up. Finally, the people
> who wrote this information may be wrong on the kind of detonator that
> was used; while an H-bomb could certainly ensure major damage to a
> steel beam, a lesser form of implosive or explosive may also be
> effective enough to do the job.
A wise man once said:
It doesn’t matter how much evidence you have one way or the other,
conspiracy theories are always fungible and irrefutable - all evidence
against the theory is presented by the conspiracist as "evidence" for
how powerful the theory is.
Phasmatis
Ragnar wrote:
> User1 wrote:
> > View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center
> > collapsed
> >
> > http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm
> >
> > The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they
> > were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when
> > the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some
> > extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers
> > were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are
> > approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's.
>
> Actually, the 707 manufactured at the time of the WTC design only
> weighed about 250,000 lbs loaded. The 767, on the other hand, weighs
> about 395,000 lbs fully loaded. Thats hardly "approximately of the same
> size".
According to the website whatreallyhappened.com, your information is
inaccurate. Here are the exact statistics they provide:
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000
pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000
pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
As you can see, the Boeing 767 is NOT significantly larger; while it
does carry extra weight and 980 more gallons of fuel, this only serves
to slow it down and decrease its maximum altitude in comparison to its
sister 707 plane. Also, the weight of an object can not be used as a
measure for its size, but rather its mass, which is a COMBINATION of
size and weight.
> > Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and
> > weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in
> > the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the
> > durability of a steel trunk.
>
> Kerosene wasn't the only thing burning.
Okay. What else was burning?
> > In mid-February in Madrid, the Windsor Tower (see above) burned for
> > over 20
> > hours, which led to a fire stronger and hotter than that in the WTC, but
> > even the collapses of the Windsor Tower caused by the very strong and
> > long-enduring fire were minimal and limited to the upper floors. If either
> > of the WTC tower had started to collapse because of fires the collapse would
> > have been limited to only a few of the floors and then stopped.
>
> Umm, the Windsor tower wasn't the same design as the WTC. Show me a
> fire in a building of the same design and you might have a point.
True; the WIndsor Tower has a truss infrastructure, a design famous for
its strength. The WTC was built using a vertical-rod design, according
to another post here; I have yet to see any comparative statistics on
its structural strength - or, for that matter, its design.
> > Destruction of the towers by explosions is clear according to the
> > photographs and reports of the eye witnesses.
>
> Show me the wiring. Show me fragments of detonators. Show me debris
> subjected to chemical explosives. And show me the teams of workers who
> would have had to run hundreds of miles of detonator wires and implant
> thousands of pounds of explosives. And the teams who would have had to
> go in and weaken the structure ahead of time. Ever seen a building set
> up to be imploded? Takes several weeks and lots of labor.
I admit this is hearsay, but I've heard stories about people in white
suits ferrying material into the WTC for months before the attack took
place. Also, using computers and satellite networks, one could
theoretically detonate implosives by remote, AND opt to not detonate
implosives placed above the damaged floors. Any fragments of
detonators, if found at all, would likely be posessed by government
authorities before word got out; reports of chemicals found on the
debris, if ever filed or even looked for, would also be confiscated.
(Much of the debris was likely junked en masse anyway.) The note about
"weakening the structure ahead of time" is noteworthy, though.
> > As seen in the following pictures, the cores of the towers were not
> > distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern
> > thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb.
>
> And where is the radiation?
Good point. But if the H-bomb produces a small enough amount of power,
U. Wascal Wabbit
> Ragnar wrote:
Don't pay any attention to ragnar the chicken-fucker. He - or it - is a
gummint shill who routinely posts lies and diversions, like his fellow
travelers, sky king and agent86. There are several more of these. Perhaps
they're paid, or perhaps they're just mental defectives, but either way
it's a complete waste of your time to respond to any of them.
I urge you to ignore ragnar and the others. Consign them to your kill-file
or "plonk" filter.
Vandar
For what better way to pursue knowledge than to ignore everyone who
doesn't agree with you.
studio
No, what's ultimately stupid is you finding the
ultimatey stupid to say.....which you did.
Congratulations.
If there was a dumbass award, I'd vote for you
and I'm sure you would win.
You should at least try for the Darwin Award ASAP.
Ian
plane hit.
More amazing than that, despite flying fuel laden jet aeroplane into
the explosives, none went off for 10 minutes.
The rigger must've been brilliant.
Ragnar
> Ragnar wrote:
>
>>User1 wrote:
>>
>>>View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center
>>>collapsed
>>>
>>>http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm
>>>
>>>The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they
>>>were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when
>>>the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some
>>>extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers
>>>were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are
>>>approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's.
>>
>>Actually, the 707 manufactured at the time of the WTC design only
>>weighed about 250,000 lbs loaded. The 767, on the other hand, weighs
>>about 395,000 lbs fully loaded. Thats hardly "approximately of the same
>>size".
>
>
> According to the website whatreallyhappened.com, your information is
> inaccurate. Here are the exact statistics they provide:
>
> The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000
> pounds.
Except that the 707 modelled conditions were for an aircraft weighing
263000 lbs and a flight speed of 180mph. The 767 both weighed more than
that AND was travellling significantly faster than 180mph.
> As you can see, the Boeing 767 is NOT significantly larger; while it
> does carry extra weight and 980 more gallons of fuel, this only serves
> to slow it down and decrease its maximum altitude in comparison to its
> sister 707 plane. Also, the weight of an object can not be used as a
> measure for its size, but rather its mass, which is a COMBINATION of
> size and weight.
Don't forget kinetic energy, which is based on speed AND mass. The 767
was travelling much faster than the modelled 180mph the WTC designers
had used.
>>>Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and
>>>weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in
>>>the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the
>>>durability of a steel trunk.
>>
>>Kerosene wasn't the only thing burning.
>
>
> Okay. What else was burning?
Umm, the building materials inside. Walls, carpet, desks, papers,
everything.
Complete conjecture without even one shred of evidence. Thank you.
>>>As seen in the following pictures, the cores of the towers were not
>>>distracted by thousands of powerful cutting charges but by a modern
>>>thermonuclear explosive, a small hydrogen bomb.
>>
>>And where is the radiation?
>
>
> Good point. But if the H-bomb produces a small enough amount of power,
> less of the dangerous radiation would be produced in consequence; n'est
> pas?
It also would produce less destructive power. And radioactive
byproducts would still exist in quantities far greater than prior to any
explosion.
> Also, like I said before, any conclusive tests or reports on tests
> discovering radiation in the area would be confiscated by the
> government. Such is an integral part of a cover-up. Finally, the people
> who wrote this information may be wrong on the kind of detonator that
> was used; while an H-bomb could certainly ensure major damage to a
> steel beam, a lesser form of implosive or explosive may also be
> effective enough to do the job.
>
More hand-waving to get your desired results.
U. Wascal Wabbit
> U. Wascal Wabbit wrote:
>>
>> Don't pay any attention to ragnar the chicken-fucker. He - or it - is a
>> gummint shill who routinely posts lies and diversions, like his fellow
>> travelers, sky king and agent86. There are several more of these. Perhaps
>> they're paid, or perhaps they're just mental defectives, but either way
>> it's a complete waste of your time to respond to any of them.
>>
>> I urge you to ignore ragnar and the others. Consign them to your kill-file
>> or "plonk" filter.
>
> For what better way to pursue knowledge than to ignore everyone who
> doesn't agree with you.
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, xaxxar. It's a matter of
dealing with lock-step promoters of disinformation.
I left your name off the red list, but I'll add it for you.
Vandar
Which would only prove my point.
MilSpec FuckHead
news:lkblu154vk6qabl4h...@4ax.com:
> It
> was right about where the planes hit that the contractor stopped
> spraying asbestos fire insulation on the steel (EPA regs changed in
> the middle of construction
There are non asbestos fire-proofing materials, and the beams were not
bare, as you seem to be claiming.
--
Hi! I'm the .sig virus that will destroy Usenet. Please add me to your sig.
- END USENET NOW http://www.bedoper.com/usenet
TedKennedyMurderedHisP...@spamgourmet.com
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> > It would make more sense to try to find a structural engineer to
> > comment. What is a "Military Expert" supposed to know about structural
> > collapse. Even demolition experts have trouble predicting the result of
> > controlled demolitions. That is why their insurance is so expensive.
>
> WTF does george bush know about structural collapse??? And yet most
More than you do.
> americans take his word that the collapses were due to planes!! Now
We didn't take his word; we saw, as a live broadcast, one of the planes
hit the buildings. Common sense dictates the rest, which explains why
you don't understand or believe it.
> there's stupid for you.
Yes, you are.
gerry
that radio remotes could have set off the explosives, which is highly
improbable. If there were explosives left on a high floor by al Qaeda,
the trigger would have been a cell phone detonator.
What is amazing is that you go on a site called alt:conspiracy and then
dismiss a conspiracy posting out of hand by misquoting the posting.
You are boring.
Phasmatis
2) I admit that in some responses, conjecture is all I have to go on.
3) I know the whole conspiracy theory may well be a sham.
But that does not give people the right to label me a fool, or any term
which is synonymous.
I am using what knowledge I have. I am also willing to acquire new
knowledge in order to better understand why I may or not be right.
However, since I have simply been told I'm wrong with no thorough
explanation of why, I am forced to seek out the information myself. No
assistance, thank you; I'll figure it out all on my own without any
guidance at all.
Conjecture is a perfectly valid form of argument. Its purpose is to
ask, "What if?" Conjecture is the basis for many a theory - evolution,
the Big Bang, tomorrow's weather report, etc. Its use should not
condemn one to being foolish - in fact, the fool is the one who does
NOT ask "What if?" and simply accepts everything they are told. (This
includes people who take conspiracy theories at face value.)
Conspiracy theories do usually seem silly, and rarely have much in the
way of solid evidence. This is why the majority of people don't pay any
attention to them. However, conspiracy theories do have a purpose, and
a very good one: if we don't look for them, who is to say they are not
there? Thus, I root for the underdog and support the conspiracy "kooks"
in their neverending quest for corruption.
-------------------
And now, in response to the refusion of my claims...
Kinetic energy: Good point. I had not taken into account that the
statistics specified a speed of 180 miles per hour in a 707; since the
more massive 767s were flying more quickly, they would produce a
greater reaction and cause more damage to the building. I WAS WRONG. I
APOLOGIZE.
Burning materials: Also valid. Then again, not everything burns at the
same temperature; the heat from burning paper, for example, is a
fraction of the amount from burning jet fuel. Still, it is a valid
point.
White-suit witness: Again, quite valid. Of course, there may be other
witnesses who simply didn't speak up or didn't make the same
connection. It may also be another part of the cover-up phase - payoffs
and threats are two ways to "persuade" a person that the white suits
were never there. So why wasn't the one witness assassinted? To me it's
straightforward: if you kill the witness, you kill plausible
deniability along with him.
Controlled demolition: Wouldn't a controlled demolition, by the
prodecure described, have been far too obvious? Starting from the
bottom of the building would have no viable explanation, and imploding
a building from the top down simply takes a different arrangement of
timing the explosives; furthermore, these implosives would not HAVE to
be placed at the core of the building, which it is claimed was largely
intact, in oder to achieve the desired effect. Also, a mathematician
could hypothetically determine what floors of the Towers were most
likely to be hit by a 767, and what floors couldn't possibly BE hit,
and concluded in the results on which floors implosives should be
placed. For all we know, the government had full access to al-Qaeda
material displaying where the planes were supposed to hit. Finally, it
is perfectly natural that debris was spread for blocks; we ARE talking
about two eighty-story skyscrapers with no shielding material around
the site, and I doubt buildings of this size are demolished very often
considering that most of them are recent constructions with a lack of
hazardous wear and a lot of celebrity status.
H-bomb: Okay, so an H-bomb would have been too powerful. Yet it is
COMPLETELY IGNORED that I already acknwoledged it may not have been an
H-bomb at all. Such omissions can take a wrecking ball to a
counterargument. Also, saying an H-bomb would have propelled the towers
into orbit seems (to me) an equally ludicrous statement as saying an
H-bomb was there in the first place; if mathematical/scientific proof
of this can be shown to me, THEN I might consider it. Otherwise, I will
continue to regard it as a gross exxageration.
I await your further counterarguments. Aside from the name-calling, I'm
having a lot of fun doing this! :D
Phasmatis
my understanding that the conspiracy was the American government
planted them...
Ian
gerry wrote:
> That is not what the original posting said. The posting speculates
> that radio remotes could have set off the explosives, which is highly
> improbable. If there were explosives left on a high floor by al Qaeda,
> the trigger would have been a cell phone detonator.
> What is amazing is that you go on a site called alt:conspiracy and then
> dismiss a conspiracy posting out of hand by misquoting the posting.
>
> You are boring.
You're misreading what I posted. Go read it again fuckhead.
Bret Cahill
hell
< out of those buildings.
Maybe they wanted to spend some time in Iraq?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
< and was ignored.)
No one ever claimed FDR was actively involved in attacking U. S. ships.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
natural insulator will hold up longer in a fire and give people time to
vacate the building.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
< fires that reaches only 825 °C
< (approx. 1517 °F)
The adiabatic flame temperature of most petroleum fuels is over 3000 F.
A liquid slaming into a solid at 500 mph, the speed of a liquid exiting
a 2500 psi pressure washer nozzle, could be expected to splatter into
fine droplets -- perfect for combustion.
< steel weakens at 800 °C (approx.
< 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C
< (approx. 2890 °F).
An MIT study concluded the joints could have been designed better.
Everything didn't need to be heated to 800F for the building to fall.
Oil fires bring down steel structures all the time. Get used to it.
Bret Cahill
Sky King
>1) I do have a limited base of knowledge.
>2) I admit that in some responses, conjecture is all I have to go on.
>3) I know the whole conspiracy theory may well be a sham.
>
>But that does not give people the right to label me a fool, or any term
>which is synonymous.
>
>I am using what knowledge I have. I am also willing to acquire new
>knowledge in order to better understand why I may or not be right.
Good.
You can enhance your education on the matter by reading the excellent
articles here:
particularly the recent paper's by Dr. Fank Greening here:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/NISTREPORT.pdf
Then come back and give us your honest views on what you've read and how
that affects your outlook on the matter.
Jay
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1139756342.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Oil fires bring down steel structures all the time.
Please, Pretty please, give me cites for this statement.
Phasmatis
PDF files, but the website provided a remarkable wealth of intelligent,
well-supported material. Thus the following results...
Burning materials: In 911myths.com's comparison of the WTC and the
Windsor Tower, it is shown that a large amount of jet fuel would be
more than enough to cripple a steel structure, especially one designed
like the Twin Towers. A poorly designed truss structure beneath each
floor would buckle under the heat, causing the floors to collapse from
within the tower - just as documentaries I have seen assessing the
event describe. And so the claim that the jet fuel was not hot enough
to down a steel structure falls short.
Controlled demolition: According to one theory, a power-down in the
North Tower from floor fifty upwards was used as a cover-up for bomb
planting. In comparison, 911myths.com shows that a fully disclosed
implosion event once took 24 days for a much smaller structure of only
30 or so floors, in contrast to the fourscore-plus of the WTC in the
space of a 36-hour power-down.
H-bomb: By pictures alone, 911myths.com completely and soundly refutes
this theory. An antomic explosion should have resutled in a mushroom
cloud, or at the very least a blazing hot fallout. No such explosion
exists. The H-bomb theory is, at best, unfounded.
Even the theories that the administration laid aside clear evidence
that 9/11 would occur (a theory which we have larglely ignored here) is
blatently questioned. The facts seem to say that the only evidence we
had was that an attack could take place to persuade us into releasing
al-Qaedan prisoners. There is not necessarily anything referring to
planes or skyscrapers; so even the most modest and perhaps most
plausible of theories is given serious consideration and is eventually
rejected.
HOWEVER...
Perhaps the most intelligent presentation made by 911myths.com is right
on their home page:
"Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps
no-one, and we'd like to play a small part in revealing some of them.
We're not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use
this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories,
revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so
common online.
But does this make us an authority? No. If we've an overall message
here, it's check things for yourself. Don't trust a site just
because it's telling you what you want to believe. Don't believe us
without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we
provide, either (we're as likely to make mistakes as anyone else).
Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and
make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less."
THEY ADMIT, DIRECTLY, THAT ANY OF THEIR CLAIMS CAN BE POTENTIALLY
INCORRECT. AND THEY NEVER SAY THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE
ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
But they did provide excellent evidence, which is the foundation for
any argument.
So what are my honest views? How does this affect my outlook?
Plenty of the theories presented here are absolutely nuts. But even the
skeptics concede that they are not impossible. My view has not changed;
in fact, it has only been bolstered by the information I have been
provided with. It is important to look at ALL sides of the issue; this
means people taking sides, and lots and lots of debate, until the whole
truth comes out. Even if we never get the results, WE AT LEAST ASKED
THE QUESTIONS. That above all else is of greatest importance.
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
<snip>
>But they did provide excellent evidence, which is the foundation for
>any argument.
>
>So what are my honest views? How does this affect my outlook?
>
>Plenty of the theories presented here are absolutely nuts. But even the
>skeptics concede that they are not impossible. My view has not changed;
>in fact, it has only been bolstered by the information I have been
>provided with. It is important to look at ALL sides of the issue; this
>means people taking sides, and lots and lots of debate, until the whole
>truth comes out. Even if we never get the results, WE AT LEAST ASKED
>THE QUESTIONS. That above all else is of greatest importance.
Translation: He's still a conspiracy wacko, he just hasn't found the
right one yet.
Phasmatis
9/11, there is still the matter of the Project for the New American
Century. Even if the government didn't have anything to do with the
attacks, it did give the neoconservative agenda the second Pearl Harbor
it wanted.
(And I know no one has said FDR's administration helped along Pearl
Harbor; I was only making a partial comparison. Sorry for the
confusion.)
Phasmatis
Hey, the 9/11 conspiracies are NOTHING. Have you heard the one about
how the American, Russian, and Japanese governments are using
Tesla-based technology to control the weather and use it as a weapon? I
was seeing grids in the clouds for days! (The URL is
www.weatherwars.info, in case you're interested.) I've also heard talk
that the Iraqi hostage videos are poorly constructed fakes; one piece
of evidence is that one of the executioners is wearing a wedding ring,
which is apparently forbidden in Islam.
And then there's the conspiracy theory of my own invention.
(Conjecture-haters beware!) In order to make a dictatorship out of
America, the Bush administration would at this point require a
three-step plan:
1) Once they have an excuse (e.g. a terrorist attack), Bush signs a
federal martial law into action. The military is ordered to shoot
whoever defies the order on sight.
2) In America's history, there have been two Sedition Acts, at the
beginning of the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively. Basically, they
state that the people may not slander the government, or say or do what
may be considered contradictory to the government and its actions.
Overwhelming popular protest forced the government to repeal the acts
before. With martial law in place, it would almost assuredly be easier
to hang on to it. (And we are overdue for another one.)
3) The Administration convinces Congress and the Supreme Court to
repeal the constitutional amendment that only allows a president two
terms. With the Sedition Act in place, the American people can not
legally question the action; thanks to martial law, any public protest
would have a very bloody end.
Of course, this theory has more than enough devils in the details, and
wouldn't necessarily be successful. However, in the current state of
the nation it's not entirely implausible.
Yes, I'm a conspiracy wacko. And I'm proud of it, too; if I just
accepted everything I was told by the government and mass media, not
only would I be a fool, but my life would get really boring. The whole
point of conspiracy theories is to question authority, one of the basic
principles behind the Declaration of Independence and the very
existence of America. Sure, I'm probably wrong a lot of the time. But
if we don't question authority, what motivates authority to give us
answers?
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
>> Translation: He's still a conspiracy wacko, he just hasn't found the
>> right one yet.
>
>Hey, the 9/11 conspiracies are NOTHING. Have you heard the one about
>how the American, Russian, and Japanese governments are using
>Tesla-based technology to control the weather and use it as a weapon? I
>was seeing grids in the clouds for days! (The URL is
>www.weatherwars.info, in case you're interested.) I've also heard talk
>that the Iraqi hostage videos are poorly constructed fakes; one piece
>of evidence is that one of the executioners is wearing a wedding ring,
>which is apparently forbidden in Islam.
See, I was right....
>And then there's the conspiracy theory of my own invention.
>(Conjecture-haters beware!) In order to make a dictatorship out of
>America, the Bush administration would at this point require a
>three-step plan:
>
>1) Once they have an excuse (e.g. a terrorist attack), Bush signs a
>federal martial law into action. The military is ordered to shoot
>whoever defies the order on sight.
Which didn't happen after 9/11.
>2) In America's history, there have been two Sedition Acts, at the
>beginning of the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively. Basically, they
>state that the people may not slander the government, or say or do what
>may be considered contradictory to the government and its actions.
>Overwhelming popular protest forced the government to repeal the acts
>before.
And we survived both of them.
>With martial law in place, it would almost assuredly be easier
>to hang on to it. (And we are overdue for another one.)
But then you conspiracy theory has already failed on count 1. And no
one is going to grant Bush the power that you theorize in 2.
>3) The Administration convinces Congress and the Supreme Court to
>repeal the constitutional amendment that only allows a president two
>terms.
The Congress and the Supreme Court have no such power under the
Constitution.
>With the Sedition Act in place, the American people can not
>legally question the action; thanks to martial law, any public protest
>would have a very bloody end.
And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts. Don't you pay
attention to the news? Bush will do well to escape his presidency
without impeachment hearings being called.
>Of course, this theory has more than enough devils in the details, and
>wouldn't necessarily be successful. However, in the current state of
>the nation it's not entirely implausible.
But then nothing is impossible to a conspiracy wacko.
>Yes, I'm a conspiracy wacko.
Recognition of the problem is always the first step to recovery.
>And I'm proud of it, too; if I just
>accepted everything I was told by the government and mass media, not
>only would I be a fool,
And only fools do such things.
>but my life would get really boring. The whole
>point of conspiracy theories is to question authority,
It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to question authority, sparky.
> one of the basic
>principles behind the Declaration of Independence and the very
>existence of America. Sure, I'm probably wrong a lot of the time. But
>if we don't question authority, what motivates authority to give us
>answers?
Asking questions is not the same as questioning authority, sparky.
You're one very confused fellow.
Phasmatis
age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2006 19:40:23 -0800, "Phasmatis" <quan...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Hey, the 9/11 conspiracies are NOTHING. Have you heard the one about
> >how the American, Russian, and Japanese governments are using
> >Tesla-based technology to control the weather and use it as a weapon? I
> >was seeing grids in the clouds for days! (The URL is
> >www.weatherwars.info, in case you're interested.) I've also heard talk
> >that the Iraqi hostage videos are poorly constructed fakes; one piece
> >of evidence is that one of the executioners is wearing a wedding ring,
> >which is apparently forbidden in Islam.
>
> See, I was right....
>
Yes, you were. But I don't have a problem with it.
> >And then there's the conspiracy theory of my own invention.
> >(Conjecture-haters beware!) In order to make a dictatorship out of
> >America, the Bush administration would at this point require a
> >three-step plan:
> >
> >1) Once they have an excuse (e.g. a terrorist attack), Bush signs a
> >federal martial law into action. The military is ordered to shoot
> >whoever defies the order on sight.
>
> Which didn't happen after 9/11.
>
Allow me to emphasize the phrase AT THIS POINT.
> >2) In America's history, there have been two Sedition Acts, at the
> >beginning of the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively. Basically, they
> >state that the people may not slander the government, or say or do what
> >may be considered contradictory to the government and its actions.
> >Overwhelming popular protest forced the government to repeal the acts
> >before.
>
> And we survived both of them.
>
Because the government couldn't put martial law in place first.
> >With martial law in place, it would almost assuredly be easier
> >to hang on to it. (And we are overdue for another one.)
>
> But then you conspiracy theory has already failed on count 1. And no
> one is going to grant Bush the power that you theorize in 2.
>
They granted it to administrations before him; why not his? And again,
I am reffering to THIS POINT in time.
> >3) The Administration convinces Congress and the Supreme Court to
> >repeal the constitutional amendment that only allows a president two
> >terms.
>
> The Congress and the Supreme Court have no such power under the
> Constitution.
>
Good point. You don't need the Supreme Court if the President approves
it; you just need Congress to strike the two-term amendment. Unless it
specifically states in the amendment that it can not under any
circumstances be repealed, Congress does have the power; otherwise,
we'd still be banning alcohol.
> >With the Sedition Act in place, the American people can not
> >legally question the action; thanks to martial law, any public protest
> >would have a very bloody end.
>
> And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts. Don't you pay
> attention to the news? Bush will do well to escape his presidency
> without impeachment hearings being called.
>
I read that, and it made no sense. (And I DO pay attention to the
news.)
> >Of course, this theory has more than enough devils in the details, and
> >wouldn't necessarily be successful. However, in the current state of
> >the nation it's not entirely implausible.
>
> But then nothing is impossible to a conspiracy wacko.
>
So, nothing is impossible, including impossibility? Yeah, a theorist
like that certainly WOULD be a crackpot. However, if you were to say
"anything is possible to a conspiracy wacko," it would show he is
intelligent enough to realize his conspiracy theory may well be a
complete bust.
> >Yes, I'm a conspiracy wacko.
>
> Recognition of the problem is always the first step to recovery.
>
You treat conspiracism like it's a disease. Personally, I find it a
good brain stretcher. (It's much more invigorating than homework. :P )
> >And I'm proud of it, too; if I just
> >accepted everything I was told by the government and mass media, not
> >only would I be a fool,
>
> And only fools do such things.
>
I'm glad you agree.
> >but my life would get really boring. The whole
> >point of conspiracy theories is to question authority,
>
> It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to question authority, sparky.
>
True. But it is questioning authority nonetheless.
> > one of the basic
> >principles behind the Declaration of Independence and the very
> >existence of America. Sure, I'm probably wrong a lot of the time. But
> >if we don't question authority, what motivates authority to give us
> >answers?
>
> Asking questions is not the same as questioning authority, sparky.
> You're one very confused fellow.
No, asking questions is not the same as questioning authority. However,
questioning authoirty is a form of asking questions. Converted to a
logic problem, X does not equal Y, but X minus Z ("Z" being all the
other ways to ask questions) does equal Y.
(I'm sure we could go on like this for a while and never get
anywhere...)
monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar
Don't bother yourself with agent86 and sky king, they're a complete
waste of time.
Ask them how a passport would survive the north tower impact to be
found a few blocks away, intact, and just before the towers collapsed.
Ask them also about the flight training manual in ARABIC found in a car
rented by Atta in Boston when no arab flight school teaches in arabic,
not mentionning the fact that Atta got back to Portland, leaving the
car in a parking, and then took the plane back to Boston in order to
take the "hijacked" plane (and be the only passenger, along with his
mate, to not having his luggage make the connection - ask then what
they found in his luggage)
These are clearely fake evidence and they are alone sufficient to prove
the government was in it a way or another.
As for the towers, well the reasons of the initiating process, as
described by the NIST report, are not at all what those two blokes say;
i bet they don't even understand the NIST conclusion. However, it is
clear that if one floor collapsed completely, the whole tower would
follow. The challange is to explain how a floor could have collapsed.
Sky King
>
>THEY ADMIT, DIRECTLY, THAT ANY OF THEIR CLAIMS CAN BE POTENTIALLY
>INCORRECT. AND THEY NEVER SAY THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE
>ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
Now, find us some 9/11 conspiracy sites that say the same thing about
themselves?
Please provide the links to those sites.
If you can find none, let us know.
Thanks.
Sky King
>Phasmatis
>
>Don't bother yourself with agent86 and sky king, they're a complete
>waste of time.
Translation: we keep showing how monnoidiot makes an ass of himself.
>
>Ask them how a passport would survive the north tower impact to be
>found a few blocks away, intact, and just before the towers collapsed.
Answered.
>
>Ask them also about the flight training manual in ARABIC found in a car
>rented by Atta in Boston when no arab flight school teaches in arabic,
>not mentionning the fact that Atta got back to Portland, leaving the
>car in a parking, and then took the plane back to Boston in order to
>take the "hijacked" plane (and be the only passenger, along with his
>mate, to not having his luggage make the connection - ask then what
>they found in his luggage)
Answered.
>
>These are clearely fake evidence and they are alone sufficient to prove
>the government was in it a way or another.
No, you never proved anything about 9/11, monnoidiot. It's all on the
record that you were completely flummoxed on every issue.
>
>As for the towers, well the reasons of the initiating process, as
>described by the NIST report, are not at all what those two blokes say;
>i bet they don't even understand the NIST conclusion. However, it is
>clear that if one floor collapsed completely, the whole tower would
>follow. The challange is to explain how a floor could have collapsed.
You remember, monoidiot, that it is all explained here and we are STILL
waiting for you to refute these reports:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/NISTREPORT.pdf
Of course, we will alwys keep waiting because you never can deal with any
facts, monnoidiot.
Phasmatis, monnoidiot the house clown illustrates why I always say that one
can never underestimate the intelligence of the 9/11 Denial Movement.
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
>
>age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
>> On 12 Feb 2006 19:40:23 -0800, "Phasmatis" <quan...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hey, the 9/11 conspiracies are NOTHING. Have you heard the one about
>> >how the American, Russian, and Japanese governments are using
>> >Tesla-based technology to control the weather and use it as a weapon? I
>> >was seeing grids in the clouds for days! (The URL is
>> >www.weatherwars.info, in case you're interested.) I've also heard talk
>> >that the Iraqi hostage videos are poorly constructed fakes; one piece
>> >of evidence is that one of the executioners is wearing a wedding ring,
>> >which is apparently forbidden in Islam.
>>
>> See, I was right....
>
>Yes, you were. But I don't have a problem with it.
Gee, what a surprise.
>> >And then there's the conspiracy theory of my own invention.
>> >(Conjecture-haters beware!) In order to make a dictatorship out of
>> >America, the Bush administration would at this point require a
>> >three-step plan:
>> >
>> >1) Once they have an excuse (e.g. a terrorist attack), Bush signs a
>> >federal martial law into action. The military is ordered to shoot
>> >whoever defies the order on sight.
>>
>> Which didn't happen after 9/11.
>
>Allow me to emphasize the phrase AT THIS POINT.
Bush has already had an opportunity to do step one of your plan and
didn't. Conspiracy wackos have been claiming that "martial law" was
imminent for many years. It hasn't happened and it isn't going to.
>> >2) In America's history, there have been two Sedition Acts, at the
>> >beginning of the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively. Basically, they
>> >state that the people may not slander the government, or say or do what
>> >may be considered contradictory to the government and its actions.
>> >Overwhelming popular protest forced the government to repeal the acts
>> >before.
>> And we survived both of them.
>
>Because the government couldn't put martial law in place first.
Maybe you should read up on your Civil War history a bit.
>> >With martial law in place, it would almost assuredly be easier
>> >to hang on to it. (And we are overdue for another one.)
>>
>> But then you conspiracy theory has already failed on count 1. And no
>> one is going to grant Bush the power that you theorize in 2.
>
>They granted it to administrations before him; why not his? And again,
>I am reffering to THIS POINT in time.
Because there is no reason to do so and it would be thrown out by the
Courts as soon as a case could be brought to trial.
>> >3) The Administration convinces Congress and the Supreme Court to
>> >repeal the constitutional amendment that only allows a president two
>> >terms.
>>
>> The Congress and the Supreme Court have no such power under the
>> Constitution.
>
>Good point. You don't need the Supreme Court if the President approves
>it; you just need Congress to strike the two-term amendment. Unless it
>specifically states in the amendment that it can not under any
>circumstances be repealed, Congress does have the power; otherwise,
>we'd still be banning alcohol.
You've already shown that you don't have much of a grasp of history,
and now you doubly confirm it and add a dose of not having a clue
about what the Constitution says. Congress alone does not have the
power to strike an amendment from the Constitution. There is the
little matter of ratification by the States.
>> >With the Sedition Act in place, the American people can not
>> >legally question the action; thanks to martial law, any public protest
>> >would have a very bloody end.
>>
>> And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts. Don't you pay
>> attention to the news? Bush will do well to escape his presidency
>> without impeachment hearings being called.
>
>I read that, and it made no sense. (And I DO pay attention to the
>news.)
Have your mommy read it to you and explain it.
>> >Of course, this theory has more than enough devils in the details, and
>> >wouldn't necessarily be successful. However, in the current state of
>> >the nation it's not entirely implausible.
>>
>> But then nothing is impossible to a conspiracy wacko.
>>
>
>So, nothing is impossible, including impossibility?
Gee, you got something right for a change.
<snip>
>> >Yes, I'm a conspiracy wacko.
>>
>> Recognition of the problem is always the first step to recovery.
>
>You treat conspiracism like it's a disease. Personally, I find it a
>good brain stretcher. (It's much more invigorating than homework. :P )
Only if your brain is empty to start with.
<snip>
>> It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to question authority, sparky.
>
>True. But it is questioning authority nonetheless.
And you miss the point entirely.
<snip>
Phasmatis
use of unfounded ad-hominem "counterarguments." Instead of explaining
to me reasonably why my theories are unworkable, you prefer to
sardonically accuse me of stupidity and naiveté.
age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2006 20:15:43 -0800, "Phasmatis" <quan...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >1) Once they have an excuse (e.g. a terrorist attack), Bush signs a
> >> >federal martial law into action. The military is ordered to shoot
> >> >whoever defies the order on sight.
> >>
> >> Which didn't happen after 9/11.
> >
> >Allow me to emphasize the phrase AT THIS POINT.
>
> Bush has already had an opportunity to do step one of your plan and
> didn't. Conspiracy wackos have been claiming that "martial law" was
> imminent for many years. It hasn't happened and it isn't going to.
>
Let me state this as clearly as possible: long-term martial law WAS NOT
POSSIBLE by reason of September 11th on its own. There has been no
terrorist incursion on American soil since, thus providing no reason to
make Americans feel they are in a state of constant insecurity.
And calling people like myself 'conspiracy wackos" doesn't help your
argument.
> >> >2) In America's history, there have been two Sedition Acts, at the
> >> >beginning of the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively. Basically, they
> >> >state that the people may not slander the government, or say or do what
> >> >may be considered contradictory to the government and its actions.
> >> >Overwhelming popular protest forced the government to repeal the acts
> >> >before.
> >> And we survived both of them.
> >
> >Because the government couldn't put martial law in place first.
>
> Maybe you should read up on your Civil War history a bit.
>
You're talking about the Lincoln administration, in the MID-19th
century (a bit of a temporal discrepancy here). Lincoln was among our
less corrupted presidents and had no reason to instate a Sedition Act.
In fact, he had every reason not to. Doing so would only prove the
point of the Confederates: that they had no voice in the affairs of the
country. (Some Southerners still consider Appomattox to be a mere
ceasefire, even 150 years later when no one from the Civil War is still
alive.)
> >> >With martial law in place, it would almost assuredly be easier
> >> >to hang on to it. (And we are overdue for another one.)
> >>
> >> But then you conspiracy theory has already failed on count 1. And no
> >> one is going to grant Bush the power that you theorize in 2.
> >
> >They granted it to administrations before him; why not his? And again,
> >I am reffering to THIS POINT in time.
>
> Because there is no reason to do so and it would be thrown out by the
> Courts as soon as a case could be brought to trial.
>
Two words: PATRIOT ACT. People HAVE been targeted by the government via
this law for reading certain books, expressing particular views (such
as a certain T-shirt), or even simply SAYING something that seemed
anti-American (reference Farenheit 9/11). A third Sedition Act, which
I'm sure the Administration would not be quite foolish enough to give
the exact same name, would simply be a stronger, broader, and more
iron-fisted version of the restrictions detailed in the Patriot Act.
Furthermore, keep in mind that when the two Sedition Acts were passed,
America was not in a state of war OR of significant disarray, and they
were passed anyhow.
>
> You've already shown that you don't have much of a grasp of history,
> and now you doubly confirm it and add a dose of not having a clue
> about what the Constitution says. Congress alone does not have the
> power to strike an amendment from the Constitution. There is the
> little matter of ratification by the States.
>
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE V:
"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several states,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either
Case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as Part of this
Constitution, WHEN RATIFIED BY THREE-FOURTHS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, OR
BY CONVENTIONS IN THREE-FOURTHS THEREOF, as the one or the other Mode
of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress..."
Okay, you win this round. But keep in mind if you hadn't specified that
the Constitution called for state-legislated ratification, it would not
have occurred to me to look. This is why it is important to refute my
claims with clear evidence. Also, provided steps one and two follow
through, state ratification may not be as difficult as you claim. And I
am fully aware that you will counter this by saying step one couldn't
fall through, thus neither could step two OR step three; I re-counter
by saying that step one is entirely possible, especially when in a
state of national emergency COMBINED with several years of a state of
war. While the initial attack is not enough to warrant long-term
martial law, continuous attacks on American soil would leave the
American people more accepting of such a status.
> >> >With the Sedition Act in place, the American people can not
> >> >legally question the action; thanks to martial law, any public protest
> >> >would have a very bloody end.
> >>
> >> And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts. Don't you pay
> >> attention to the news? Bush will do well to escape his presidency
> >> without impeachment hearings being called.
> >
> >I read that, and it made no sense. (And I DO pay attention to the
> >news.)
>
> Have your mommy read it to you and explain it.
>
Oh, a personal attack. I'm so ashamed of myself...
All right, fine. We'll strike the sarcasm at the beginning; that's what
really threw me off. "Don't you pay attention to the news?" refers to
Bush's work as per Iraq, the hurricanes, the deficit, et cetera, and
how it his brought his approvals to an all-time low. However, the last
sentence is strictly a matter of opinion; unless you ARE George W.
Bush, I hardly feel you (or I) can claim to know for certain what is
going through his head.
> >> >Of course, this theory has more than enough devils in the details, and
> >> >wouldn't necessarily be successful. However, in the current state of
> >> >the nation it's not entirely implausible.
> >>
> >> But then nothing is impossible to a conspiracy wacko.
> >>
> >
> >So, nothing is impossible, including impossibility?
>
> Gee, you got something right for a change.
>
> <snip>
>
Another personal attack...
> >> >Yes, I'm a conspiracy wacko.
> >>
> >> Recognition of the problem is always the first step to recovery.
> >
> >You treat conspiracism like it's a disease. Personally, I find it a
> >good brain stretcher. (It's much more invigorating than homework. :P )
>
> Only if your brain is empty to start with.
>
> <snip>
>
And ANOTHER personal attack...
> >> It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to question authority, sparky.
> >
> >True. But it is questioning authority nonetheless.
>
> And you miss the point entirely.
>
> <snip>
Your point is that there are other ways to question authority, id est,
speaking out against authority when one feels its actions are unfair or
abusive. But how are we supposed to speak out against unfair or abusive
action by the government if they don't want us to know the action has
been made, id est, A CONSPIRACY?
-----------------------------------------
In general, your half of our debate thus far has crutched itself on
defacing me and labeling me an infantile delinquent. I have argued my
points with nothing but reasonable arguments, and have yet to
deliberately insult anyone here; in fact, I've done a fairly good job
of poking fun at myself. Granted, you have also provided well-cited
support for your views; however, if you continue to toss tomatoes at
me, I and others here will likely take your valid arguments less
seriously. Please try to argue your points hereon fairly and politely.
Phasmatis
You are absolutely right. The odds of finding a pro-conspiracy website
that admits it might be wrong are as astronomical as finding a Goth in
the Christian Coalition.
However, in Googling "conspiracy theory -movie", the very first site on
list comes close: www.ctrl.org, the Conspiracy Theory Research List.
While it does not state directly that the presented theories are
fallible, it does make evident that its objective is to provide a
central source of sensible, intelligent support of those theories.
including myself, conspiracy theorists (and those who refute them) can
be impulsive and jump to conclusions without a thorough investigation.
Such is a trait of being human. The fact that someone actually bothers
to look for intelligent support of a conspiracy theory shows we are at
least willing to try and prove to the skeptics we may not be completely
incorrect.
But again, you make an excellent point.
Aside from your references to Monno as an idiot, you have proven
yourself a reasonable fellow. I look forward to further discussions
with you.
Phasmatis
Phasmatis wrote:
> Aside from your references to Monno as an idiot, you have proven
> yourself a reasonable fellow. I look forward to further discussions
> with you.
OR LADY! That was a fault on my account; I apologize in advance for any
misjudgments I made.
USA, a Dictatorship, not a democracy
wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Feb 2006 08:19:41 +0100, "User1" <Us...@inter.net> wrote:
>
><snip much conspiracy nonsense>
>
>A 707 is not as big as a 767, sorry. And whether the towers were
>designed to withstand such an impact is kind of a moot point: they
>didn't. Comparing the WTC to the Windsor Towers assume similar
>construction and, guess what? They warn't. Windsor has conventional
>steel truss framing and the WTC had a novel "vertical rod" design that
>it turns out is highly susceptible to fire damage. All it took was
>heating the vertical steel members up above 800oC at the mid point of
>the tower for about 30 minutes and the steel softened enough to lose
>its ability to carry the load of the 20-odd stories above it. Had the
>planes hit 10 stories higher the WTC might well have survived.
>Ironically had they hit LOWER the towers might have survived too: It
>was right about where the planes hit that the contractor stopped
>spraying asbestos fire insulation on the steel (EPA regs changed in
>the middle of construction) and the steel might have survived long
>enough for the fire department to put out the fires.
>
>The NIST report coming out in March officially and comprehensively
>refutes all kook konspiracy theories. You'll look like even more of a
>fool afterwards.
Since you seem to believe the government's claims, without evidence
I might add, then you shouldn't have a problem explaining the
following, which are facts, and not conspiracy theories, proving
it wasn't terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11.
Flight # 11, 92 crew/passengers, including two pilots and 9 stewards
on the flight.
Only 20 ( 22%) are listed in the social security death database.
Only 3 family members of the 92 on board collected $1.8 million
each from the government's Compensation Fund for the loss of
their loved one.
All 3 were passengers, no crew members.
Judy Larocque
Laurie Neira
Candace Lee Williams
Flight # 77, 64 people, which includes 6 crew, 4 were attendants
who are listed on the official passenger list as being killed,
only 14 are listed in the social security death database (22%), and
only 5 of those 14 show up on the Compensation Fund list as receiving
the $1.8 million.
All were passengers, no crew :
William Caswell
Eddie Dillard
Ian Gray
John Sammartino
Leonard Taylor
Barbara Olson, who was supposedly onboard and married to U.S.
Solicitor General Ted Olson, and supposedly called her husband twice
before going down isn't listed in the social security death database,
and she isn't one of the 5 listed as receiving the $1.8 million from
the Compensation Fund.
Ever hear of any politician turning down $1.8 million, or any money
for that matter ? There's probably not one person who is going to
pass up receiving $1.8 million in compensation, and a 100%
guarantee no politician is going to, including Ted Olsen
Two of the flight attendants on the flight were husband and wife, but
neither is listed in the social security death database, and neither
one is listed on the Compensation Fund, that would be $3.6 million for
their surviving children, if they had any, or next of kin if they
didn't.
Flight # 175, 65 people including two pilots and seven attendants,
with only 18 listed in the social security death database ( 28%), and
only 3 are listed on the Compensation Fund list as receiving $1.8
million.
Michael C. Tarrou - flight attendant, not in the S/S database,
Gloria Debarrera - passenger
Timothy Ward - passenger
ELLEN MARIANI's husband Louis was killed on this flight. She had
requested the passenger list several times and kept getting the run
around. After finally getting the list she tried to contact other
family members who lost loved ones on the flight as well.
Well apparently she is the only living family member of every
passenger and crew member on that flight, because she has
been unable to find even one family member to anyone else
supposedly on the flight. Odd.
Flight # 93 had 45 on the flight, including 5 flight attendants, 2
pilots, 38 passengers.
6 passengers are listed in the social security death database (13% ),
not one crew member.
Of the 45 total onboard, not one is on the Compensation Fund list.
For the total 38 passengers there were 5 flight attendants, which
comes out to 1 attendant for every 7 passengers. 38 passengers
on a cross country flight, on an airliner that holds 230+ passengers.
Amazing.
Also, Mark Bingham, who's mother claimed he called her and left a
message before they crashed, saying " Mom, this is your son Mark
Bingham ", now why on earth would someone say to their mother, this is
your son and give his full name ? I remember his mom stating this to a
reporter on the news, and thought even then how strange it was for
someone to give their full name when it was his own mother.
Now as greedy as most people are, it's amazing how only 11 families
out of the 266 people on all 4 flights collected $1.8 million each,
from the governments Compensation Fund.
If that isn't a red flag, I don't know what is.
And of those 11, only one was a crew member, a flight attendant,
the other 10 were passengers.
Flight # 77 had a total of 58 passengers, yet had 4 attendants,
Flight # 93 had a total of 38 passengers yet had 5 attendants
Flight # 11 had a total of 81 passengers yet had 9 attendants
Flight # 11 had a total of 56 passengers yet had 7 attendants
Wow, that's 25 attendants for 4 flights, serving the amount of
passengers you would find on one full flight.
I don't know about you, but I've done a hell of a lot of flying
cross country and international for over 35 years, 99% being early
morning flights, or red eye, with all being nearly full, if not full
flights, and the maximum flight attendants on a flight was 7, average
was 5-6.
It wasn't terrorists who were in charge of airport security at all
three airports, but in fact was Wackenhut Security, owned and run
by ex-CIA/FBI agents who were. The same Wackenhut Security who
Bush teamed up with FEMA, who receives 98% of all government
security contracts, and just happened to recently replace the
security at both West Point and Annapolis.
Now supposedly it was the BS appointed 9/11 commission by Bush,
after the evidence was removed of course, who was supposed
to find out how 9/11 could have happened in the first place.
Now one would think they would be certainly interested in just
how it was that 19 supposed hijackers not only managed to get
past the passenger security check without tickets, by even
managed to get past the boarding gates without boarding passes.
Yet strangely enough, Wackenhut Security was never questioned by
the 9/11 commission. Hummmmmmm. It wouldn't be because they just
happen to buddies of the Bush's, ex-CIA/FBI agents, and happen
to receive 98% of all government security contracts, or that
Bush teamed them up with FEMA, or possibly because Wackenhut
Security recently replaced the security at both West Point and
Annapolis could it ?
A few more facts Bush just can't seem to explain away :
Amazing how the government also claimed with their official story that
flight # 93 went down in Pennsylvania, which had the tail registration
#N591UA and nose registration # 5491.
Maybe Bush and his lying government can explain how Capt Friedman
with Untied Airlines, on April 10, 2003 just happened to be flying
a 757, flight # 1111, from ORD leaving gate C20, and arrived in LAS
at gate D39 with the same tail registration # N591UA and nose
registration # 5491, a year and a half after it supposedly crashed ?
Since Capt Friedman did a lot of flying, he decided he would keep a
detailed log of every flight he flew for the year 2003. Details
included what meals were served, departure, arrival, gates,
registrations, type of the aircraft, crew member etc.
The government hadn't counted on someone keeping a detailed log,
and someone recognizing those registration numbers in the log
as being the same registration numbers as those assigned to
the aircraft of flight #93, which the government claims went
down in PA on 9/11/2001
1. Some have claimed he wrote down the wrong number. Unlikely
given the fact both numbers he wrote down were the exact same
numbers assigned to flight #93. If he had written down the
tail number wrong for example, then it wouldn't have matched
up with the nose registration number assigned to flight # 93,
or any other aircraft.
2. And what would the chances be of writing both numbers wrong,
yet both wrong numbers just happen to be an exact match to the
two registered numbers assigned to that of aircraft flight #93,
which the government claims crashed on 9/11 ? A trillion to
one ?
When an aircraft crashes, it's listed as such, and out of service
on the FAA's website. Yet the aircraft for flight #93 was listed as
in service until Sept 2005, 4 years after the attack, then listed
as crashed after Capt. Friedman's log showed up showing he flew
that aircraft on April 10, 2003 and someone recognized the
registration numbers as those assigned to flight #93.
Bush claimed Bin Laden was the mastermind, and behind the attacks
on 9/11, so one has to wonder why he stated the following in a
press conference on March 6, 2003 :
"First, thanks to the hard work of American and Pakistani officials,
we captured the mastermind of the September 11th attacks against our
nation.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed conceived and planned the hijackings and
directed the actions of the hijackers. We believe his capture will
further disrupt the terror network and their planning for additional
attacks."
I guess when you've told as many lies as Bush has trying to convince
the American people it was foreign terrorists who attacked America
on 9/11, it's hard to keep those lies straight.
Bush Sr. admission in an interview with Sarah McClendon Dec 1992 :
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we
Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the
streets and lynched."
A very interesting quote by HENRY KISSINGER, a close friend
of the Bush's, in an address to the super secret Bilderberg
Organization meeting at Evian, France, back in May 21, 1992,
as transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss
delegates :
"Today American's would be outraged if U.N. troops entered
Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful.
This is especially true if they were told there was an outside
threat from beyond, WHETHER REAL OR PROMULGATED, that threatened
our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will
plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one
thing every man fears is the unknown. When PRESENTED with this
SCENARIO, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS will be WILLINGLY relinquished for
the guarantee of their well being granted to them by THEIR WORLD
GOVERNMENT."
Take particular attention to the words in Caps.
BTW, claiming it's a "conspiracy theory" is the government's way
to try and discredit the truth from coming out. Not that the American
people would do anything anyway, so why the government lies, and
always does a really lousy job anyway, is really a mystery.
I'll bet you even believe the BS government investigation/report that
James E. Ray assassinated Dr. King Jr.
If this were true, then James E. Ray wouldn't be remembered as
assassinating Dr. King Jr., but instead for being the best marksman
in the history of mankind, given the fact he wasn't even in Memphis,
TN on the day Dr. King Jr as assassinated.
It was stated in the trial in Nov-Dec 1999, held in Memphis, TN,
"James E. Ray was a patsy, just as Lee H. Oswald had been."
The jury deliberated for 90 minutes, finding the US government, State
of TN, Memphis, TN law enforcement and others guilty for the
conspiracy and assassination of Dr. King Jr.
It was Lieutenant Earl Clark of the Memphis, TN law enforcement
and two special op agents as backup.
Amazing how the government controlled news media didn't mention a word
about the trial, much less the verdict.
When the government is allowed to investigate themselves, or appoint
who will do the investigating, as in the Kennedy assassination, Dr.
King Jr. assassination, the 9/11 commission etc., it's for one reason
only, to protect those in government who are guilty of the crimes.
Hitler said it best, when he stated :
"What good fortune for those in power, people do not think"
Sadly truer words have never been spoken.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Phasmatis
You certainly have strong evidence against the American government. It
is well-detailed, leaves little room for discrepancy (aside from a few
typos), and clearly took a while to compile and write. Seeing all that
hard work, I wonder about your sources for this information. I hardly
think someone would take the time to write everything you did, and as
eloquently, if they were faking it. Thus, i presume you do in fact have
citable sources, which you could point out to all of us that we might
see these facts for ourselves and draw our own conclusion from them.
Keep in mind i am not trying to discredit you; I'm simply trying to see
where it is you a re coming from.
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
>You know what I like the most about your posts, agent86? Your repeated
>use of unfounded ad-hominem "counterarguments." Instead of explaining
>to me reasonably why my theories are unworkable, you prefer to
>sardonically accuse me of stupidity and naivet.
I don't have to "accuse" you of anything. Your obvious ignorance of
history, law and reality are quite enough evidence for most people to
see it for themselves.
>
>age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
>> On 12 Feb 2006 20:15:43 -0800, "Phasmatis" <quan...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>> >> >
>> >> >1) Once they have an excuse (e.g. a terrorist attack), Bush signs a
>> >> >federal martial law into action. The military is ordered to shoot
>> >> >whoever defies the order on sight.
>> >>
>> >> Which didn't happen after 9/11.
>> >
>> >Allow me to emphasize the phrase AT THIS POINT.
>>
>> Bush has already had an opportunity to do step one of your plan and
>> didn't. Conspiracy wackos have been claiming that "martial law" was
>> imminent for many years. It hasn't happened and it isn't going to.
>
>Let me state this as clearly as possible: long-term martial law WAS NOT
>POSSIBLE by reason of September 11th on its own.
And now it just takes another one? At least according to your
"premise", all it would take would be a terrorist act. You didn't
qualify it as being in addition to 9/11. And how quickly you forget
that 9/11 was the second terrorist act in 8 years at the same
location. So now, 5 years out, the difference is? Or are you now
wanting to backpedal and revise your premise to something else?
>There has been no
>terrorist incursion on American soil since, thus providing no reason to
>make Americans feel they are in a state of constant insecurity.
Yeah, ain't hindsight wonderful. So what makes the next terrorist
action different than 9/11? Or 1993?
>And calling people like myself 'conspiracy wackos" doesn't help your
>argument.
But you've admitted as much, haven't you?
>> >> >2) In America's history, there have been two Sedition Acts, at the
>> >> >beginning of the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively. Basically, th=
>ey
>> >> >state that the people may not slander the government, or say or do wh=
>at
>> >> >may be considered contradictory to the government and its actions.
>> >> >Overwhelming popular protest forced the government to repeal the acts
>> >> >before.
>> >> And we survived both of them.
>> >
>> >Because the government couldn't put martial law in place first.
>>
>> Maybe you should read up on your Civil War history a bit.
>>
>
>You're talking about the Lincoln administration, in the MID-19th
>century (a bit of a temporal discrepancy here). Lincoln was among our
>less corrupted presidents and had no reason to instate a Sedition Act.
You know, sport, it's not my job to teach you American history, but
you are in desparate need of some lessons. The first "Alien and
Sedition Acts" in the United States were passed in 1798 (that's the
18th century if you're counting). These included a set of four laws,
with one most applicable to this discussion being as follows:
"The last of the laws, the Sedition Act, passed on July 14 declared
that any treasonable activity, including the publication of "any
false, scandalous and malicious writing," was a high misdemeanor,
punishable by fine and imprisonment. By virtue of this legislation
twenty-five men, most of them editors of Republican newspapers, were
arrested and their newspapers forced to shut down."
Another of the laws, The Alien Act, empowered President Adams to
arrest, detain, and deport any non-citizen he found to be a danger to
the security of the nation. The individual was given no right to a
hearing and no right to present evidence in his defense. Remind you
of any recent events?
But on to the Civil War. Let's start with the Sedition Act of 1861
"The Sedition Act is a common law offense that is less than treason
but that may be preliminary to it. The new law said that citizens
could be fined or jailed if they criticized elected officials."
Guess you forgot about that one, eh?
But the real reason I mentioned Lincoln was his declaration of martial
law.
ex parte Milligan
On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized
martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend
habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the
suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the
enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers.
The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71
US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of
martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was
unconstitutional.
So are you happy now that I've taken the time to prove your ignorance?
>In fact, he had every reason not to. Doing so would only prove the
>point of the Confederates: that they had no voice in the affairs of the
>country. (Some Southerners still consider Appomattox to be a mere
>ceasefire, even 150 years later when no one from the Civil War is still
>alive.)
Yes, the War of Northern Agression remains quite an unpleasant memory.
>>>> >With martial law in place, it would almost assuredly be easier
>> >> >to hang on to it. (And we are overdue for another one.)
>> >>
>> >> But then you conspiracy theory has already failed on count 1. And no
>> >> one is going to grant Bush the power that you theorize in 2.
>> >
>> >They granted it to administrations before him; why not his? And again,
>> >I am reffering to THIS POINT in time.
>>
>> Because there is no reason to do so and it would be thrown out by the
>> Courts as soon as a case could be brought to trial.
>>
>
>Two words: PATRIOT ACT. People HAVE been targeted by the government via
>this law for reading certain books,
Cite?
>expressing particular views (such as a certain T-shirt),
Cite? And Cindy Sheehan being escorted out of the State of the Union
was not done under the auspices of the Patriot Act.
>or even simply SAYING something that seemed
>anti-American (reference Farenheit 9/11).
Cite?
Please be sure that your citations are to examples where people have
actually suffered some sort of consequence because of the Patriot Act.
And as to your generalizations, I guess you're too young to remember
the 1960's, aren't you?
>A third Sedition Act, which
>I'm sure the Administration would not be quite foolish enough to give
>the exact same name, would simply be a stronger, broader, and more
>iron-fisted version of the restrictions detailed in the Patriot Act.
>Furthermore, keep in mind that when the two Sedition Acts were passed,
>America was not in a state of war OR of significant disarray, and they
>were passed anyhow.
Excuse me?
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were passed during a time when the
nation was in an undeclared war with France, the so-called Quasi-War.
There was, as Adams' biographer David McCullough explains, "rampant
fear of the enemy within."
The Sedition Act of 1861 was passed during the Civil War.
The U.S. Sedition Act of 1918 was passed 16 May 1918. The United
States declared war on 6 April 1917.
The Smith Act of 1940, which also had an antisedition section, was
passed under a heavy cloud of war, with the war in Asia having been
underway for a number of years and the war in Europe having started in
1939. And then you do understand that it is still in effect, as
amended, as 18 U.S. Code § 2385?
Your ignorance of history is quite appalling. Not only can you not
count the number of Sedition Acts that we've suffered through, you
don't even know the circumstances under which they were passed.
>> You've already shown that you don't have much of a grasp of history,
>> and now you doubly confirm it and add a dose of not having a clue
>> about what the Constitution says. Congress alone does not have the
>> power to strike an amendment from the Constitution. There is the
>> little matter of ratification by the States.
>>
>
>UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE V:
>"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it
>necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
>application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several states,
>shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either
>Case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as Part of this
>Constitution, WHEN RATIFIED BY THREE-FOURTHS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, OR
>BY CONVENTIONS IN THREE-FOURTHS THEREOF, as the one or the other Mode
>of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress..."
>
>Okay, you win this round.
Gosh, what a surprise.
>But keep in mind if you hadn't specified that
>the Constitution called for state-legislated ratification, it would not
>have occurred to me to look.
And you wonder why you get made fun of.
>This is why it is important to refute my claims with clear evidence.
And, of course, you take no responsibility for your ignorance, do you?
Did you sleep through your high school civics class? Or for that
matter, are you even old enough to take a high school civics class?
>Also, provided steps one and two follow
>through, state ratification may not be as difficult as you claim.
Even the first step is difficult sport. Since the beginning, some
10,000 Constitutional amendments have been proposed in Congress. Of
that, only 33 made it to the state ratification process, and of those
33, only 27 were ratified. And one of those 27 took nearly 203 years
to be ratified.
>> >> >With the Sedition Act in place, the American people can not
>> >> >legally question the action; thanks to martial law, any public protest
>> >> >would have a very bloody end.
>> >>
>> >> And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their butts. Don't you pay
>> >> attention to the news? Bush will do well to escape his presidency
>> >> without impeachment hearings being called.
>> >
>> >I read that, and it made no sense. (And I DO pay attention to the
>> >news.)
>>
>> Have your mommy read it to you and explain it.
>
>Oh, a personal attack. I'm so ashamed of myself...
>
>All right, fine. We'll strike the sarcasm at the beginning; that's what
>really threw me off. "Don't you pay attention to the news?" refers to
>Bush's work as per Iraq, the hurricanes, the deficit, et cetera, and
>how it his brought his approvals to an all-time low. However, the last
>sentence is strictly a matter of opinion; unless you ARE George W.
>Bush, I hardly feel you (or I) can claim to know for certain what is
>going through his head.
And the last sentence has nothing to do with what is going "through
George Bush's head". George Bush has little, if any, control over
whether impeachment hearings are called. So you see, I was right, you
should have had your mommy read it to you and explain it. As a
substitute, you might want to try to read some of the current articles
that are circulating. Here's an example:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060130&s=holtzman
>> >> >Yes, I'm a conspiracy wacko.
See, I told you that you had admitted it.
>> >> It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to question authority, sparky.
>> >
>> >True. But it is questioning authority nonetheless.
>>
>> And you miss the point entirely.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>Your point is that there are other ways to question authority, id est,
You know, Latin is so passe. Why don't you just say, "that is"?
>speaking out against authority when one feels its actions are unfair or
>abusive. But how are we supposed to speak out against unfair or abusive
>action by the government if they don't want us to know the action has
>been made, id est, A CONSPIRACY?
So you want to speak out against "unfair and abusive action by the
government" that you can't prove happened? On a personal level, isn't
that called slander and libel?
>In general, your half of our debate thus far has crutched itself on
>defacing me and labeling me an infantile delinquent.
Only because you demonstrate that in your writing.
>I have argued my points with nothing but reasonable arguments,
And ignorance. LOL
>Please try to argue your points hereon fairly and politely.
Only when you demonstrate that you are intelligent and responsible
enough to do so first. As I said and demonstrated above, your
knowledge of history is appalling. And apparently, your knowledge of
the Constitution is even less. And you expect others to provide your
education. And the worst of the worst, while there are more than
enough things wrong with the Government, and in particular, the Bush
administration, you advocate criticism based on heresay, innuendo and
imagination. You need to grow up.
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
>Now, in reply to Sky King's proposal:
>
>You are absolutely right. The odds of finding a pro-conspiracy website
>that admits it might be wrong are as astronomical as finding a Goth in
>the Christian Coalition.
>
>However, in Googling "conspiracy theory -movie", the very first site on
>list comes close: www.ctrl.org, the Conspiracy Theory Research List.
>While it does not state directly that the presented theories are
>fallible, it does make evident that its objective is to provide a
>central source of sensible, intelligent support of those theories.
>including myself, conspiracy theorists (and those who refute them) can
>be impulsive and jump to conclusions without a thorough investigation.
>Such is a trait of being human. The fact that someone actually bothers
>to look for intelligent support of a conspiracy theory shows we are at
>least willing to try and prove to the skeptics we may not be completely
>incorrect.
And you can't even recognize yet another conspiracy wacko website when
you see it.
The Harbinger
User1 wrote:
> View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center
> collapsed
>
> http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier5.htm
For every expert, theres an equal and opposite expert.
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
>usa:
>
>You certainly have strong evidence against the American government.
Which you accept without question and without any confirmatory
research.
>It
>is well-detailed, leaves little room for discrepancy (aside from a few
>typos),
ROTFLMAO.
>and clearly took a while to compile and write.
It's been circulating on the Internet for months. But just because
it's long and involved, that makes it right to you? How naive.
>Seeing all that
>hard work, I wonder about your sources for this information. I hardly
>think someone would take the time to write everything you did,
And that's one of your first problems. You're too easily impressed.
>and as eloquently, if they were faking it. Thus, i presume you do in fact have
>citable sources, which you could point out to all of us that we might
>see these facts for ourselves and draw our own conclusion from them.
>Keep in mind i am not trying to discredit you; I'm simply trying to see
>where it is you a re coming from.
And you are helpless to do your own independent research, right?
age...@justicespammail.com
democracy" <USA, a Dictatorship, not a democracy> wrote:
>Since you seem to believe the government's claims, without evidence
>I might add, then you shouldn't have a problem explaining the
>following, which are facts, and not conspiracy theories, proving
>it wasn't terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11.
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the butt.
>Flight # 11, 92 crew/passengers, including two pilots and 9 stewards
>on the flight.
>
>Only 20 ( 22%) are listed in the social security death database.
Your haven't a clue as to what the SSDI is, do you? Here, let's give
you a little help. Not that you haven't seen this before. It's
almost certain that you're the one who's been posting this tripe for
months. This example is about Flight 77, but the same thing can be
done for all of the aircraft:
From: agen...@justicespammail.com
Newsgroups:
alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.disasters.aviation,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Weak 757 Arguments
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:45:45 -0400
<snip for some brevity, one can find the whole post in Google>
Yes, anyone can check the Social Security Death Index. Goggle for it.
But you have to understand what it is and what it isn't. It isn't a
list of everyone who has died in the United States. And one's name
doesn't appear there unless a someone has reported the death to the
Social Security Administration.
(http://www.progenealogists.com/aboutssdi.htm).
"If you know that a deceased individual had a Social Security number,
but you cannot find reference to them in the SSDI, there are several
reasons to explain this situation:
It may be that the deceased's death was not reported to the SSA or,
the information regarding the deceased's death was reported
incorrectly.
It may be the case, too, that the individual's last name was
misspelled or a middle given name was used as the primary given name.
In searching the SSDI, you may want to try a soundex search (searches
for a similar sounding name) or try using the deceased's middle
name(s)."
Another reference:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/lesson10.htm
"As marvelous a finding aid as it is, the SSDI does not include the
names of everyone, even if they had a Social Security number (SNN). If
relatives or the funeral home did not report the death to the Social
Security Administration, or if the individual died before 1962 (when
the records were computerized) then they probably will not appear in
this database. The omission of an individual in this index does not
indicate the person is still living. It simply means that there was no
report of the person's death to Social Security Administration."
64 people on board
Those who appear in the SSDI (16 or actually 25%):
Charles F. Burlingame III, 51, Virginia, Naval Academy graduate -
Class of 1971, captain - 578-60-6508
Stanley Hall, 68, Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., Raytheon Co.
229-36-1642
Yeneneh Betru, 35, Burbank, Calif., director of medical affairs, IPC
561-81-8757
William E. Caswell, 54, Silver Spring, Md., physicist, U.S. Naval
Surface Weapons Center 220-54-1831
Wilson "Bud" Flagg, Millwood, Va., retired Navy admiral and pilot for
American Airlines 557-48-1192
Ian Gray, 55, Washington, president of healthcare consulting firm
338-48-2075
Ann Judge, 49, Great Falls, Virginia, National Geographic Society
travel office manager (National Geographic Society educational trip)
051-40-5602
Chandler Keller, 29, Boeing propulsion engineer in El Segundo, Calif.
212-04-9199
Lisa J. Raines, 42, senior vice president of biotechnology firm
Genzyme Corp. 053-46-0094
Robert Speisman, 47, Irvington, N.Y., diamond industry salesman
075-48-9795
John Yamnicky, 71, Waldorf, Md., Naval Academy graduate - Class of
1952 185-22-6737
Vicki Yancey, 44, Springfield, Va., Vredenburg 147-56-9596
Zoe Falkenberg, 3, 214-53-1139
Dana Falkenberg, 8, 216-37-5037
Zandra Cooper Ploger, 463-98-1814 (This is an example of a mismatched
name. She's listed as Zandra Cooper on the manifest, wife of Robert
Ploger. But in the SSDI, she's listed as Zandra Ploger.)
MJ Booth, 579-46-5405
So who doesn't get reported, or might not get reported, as having died
to the SSA? People who have no relatives eligible for benefits. Who
fits this description?
The other children on board the flight. (3)
Rodney Dickens
Asia Cottom
Bernard Brown
The hijackers (5)
Majed Moqed
Hani Hanjour
Khalid al-Mihdhar
Nawaf al-Hazmi
Salem al-Hazmi
Foreigners (2)
Yang Shuyin, 61, Beijing, China
Zheng Yuguang, 65, Beijing, China
Federal Employees not covered by Social Security (1)
Bryan W. Jack, 48, Alexandria, Va., senior executive at Defense
Department
Parents with no living children (at least 2):
Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, University Park, Md., director of research
at ECOlogic Corp.
Leslie A. Whittington, 45, University Park, Md., Georgetown University
professor
Others with no living children (maybe 10)
David Charlebois, 39, Washington, D.C., first officer
James Joseph Ferguson, 39, Washington, D.C., educational outreach
director, National Geographic Society (National Geographic Society
educational trip)
Flight attendant Jennifer Lewis, 38, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the
wife of flight attendant Kenneth Lewis.
Flight attendant Kenneth Lewis, 49, of Culpeper, Virginia, was the
husband of flight attendant Jennifer Lewis.
Dr. Paul Ambrose, 32, physician
Robert Ploger, 59
Mari-Rae Sopper, 35
Barbara Olson, 45
Diane Simmons
George Simmons
Others with grown children and no spouse (at least 3)
Barbara G. Edwards, 58, school teacher at Palo Verde High School in
Las Vegas
Yvonne Kennedy, 62, retired staff member and volunteer with the
Australian Red Cross.
Sarah Clark, 65
Other examples (1):
Wilson Flagg was reported, but his wife Darlene wasn't.
So one can account for 43 passengers or crew or at least 67% of the
passenger/crew manifest of 64 who either have been reported or had no
reason to be reported to SSA. As to why the rest haven't been
reported, one would have to ask their families. Perhaps they don't
know that they should. It would appear that a few (with minor
children) would be eligible for benefits. But as has been pointed
out, not appearing in the SSDI means only that the death hasn't been
reported to the SSA....
***end quote***
More info on the SSDI:
From: agen...@justicespammail.com
Newsgroups:
alt.military.retired,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Arab Hijackers? (was: Bush Ties to WTC Security)
Date: Sat, 06 Aug 2005 15:36:27 -0400
On 6 Aug 2005 11:27:06 -0700, "EagleEye" <jnew...@globalmanagement.ca>
wrote:
>Oh there we go. Thanks mellstrrr. That's a much better title in terms
>of where this thread is leading.
>
>Setting aside for a moment the fact that no Arabs were on any of the
>flights,
Lie.
>here are a couple of things to get us started regarding how
>many of the flight victims families applied for the compensation and
>how many are listed in the Social Security Death Index as having died.
>
>Social Security Death Index
>http://www.socialsecurity.gov/
>
>The Social Security Death Index (SSDI) is a privately-owned website
>that is not affiliated with Social Security.
But it's web address is not what you have above. Not only that, the
information comes from the Social Security Administration.
http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/vital/ssdi/article.htm
"As a by-product of this vast recordkeeping system, the SSA developed
a file of those individuals in the program reported as deceased. This
file is the Social Security Death Master File. Its present version
contains over 50 million entries, which ranks it as one of the largest
computer indexes with genealogical application, and certainly one of
the most valuable for twentieth century research."
>It boasts an accuracy rate
>of about 83% (e-mail them any questions you may have). Anyway, to check
Email who? The only url you've given is for the Social Security
Administration. And considering that there are over 75 million
records, 17% is quite a few errors.
>its reliability, try inputting some names of deceased people who knew
>or knew of.
Here's another description from
http://www.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=3693
Description:
The Death Master File (DMF) from the Social Security Administration
(SSA) currently contains over 74 million records. The current update
reflects the latest information provided by the SSA as of June 2005.
The file is created from internal SSA records of deceased persons
possessing social security numbers and whose deaths were reported to
the SSA. Often this was done in connection with filing for death
benefits by a family member, an attorney, a mortuary, etc. Each update
of the DMF includes corrections to old data as well as additional
names. [NOTE: If someone is missing from the list, it may be that the
benefit was never requested, an error was made on the form requesting
the benefit, or an error was made when entering the information into
the SSDI.]
The SSDI is hardly "independent" of the government, nor does it
contain 100% of the people who die.
***end quote***
>Only 3 family members of the 92 on board collected $1.8 million
>each from the government's Compensation Fund for the loss of
>their loved one.
>
>All 3 were passengers, no crew members.
>
>Judy Larocque
>Laurie Neira
>Candace Lee Williams
<snip the repetition about the other flights, as with the response on
the SSDI, the answer applies to all>
From: agen...@justicespammail.com
Newsgroups:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.impeach.bush,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: 9/11 strikes : Conclusions of Muhammad Columbo/Sky
Confusor/Agent86
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:47:57 -0500
>Only 3 family members of the 92 on board collected $1.8 million
>each from the government's Compensation Fund for the loss of
>their loved one.
<inserted note- Do these words look familiar?>
This also has been explained. If one collected from the fund, you
signed away your right to all future litigation. Not to mention that
you're lying about the amount.
The amount paid was dependent on several factors
Here's an example calculation:
http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2002/tows_past_20020131_b.jhtml
"The size of award depends on the victim's family size, age and
salary. For example, take a 30-year-old victim who had a wife and 2
young children and made $50,000 in annual income.
His family would receive:
Pain and mental anguish......... $250,000
3 dependents($50,000 each).... $150,000
Loss of future earnings............ $1,300,000
Total compensation before deductions $1,700,000
Deductions:
Life insurance......................... $100,000
Pension plan
(employee contrib.)................. $60,000
Social Security....................... $160,000
Worker's compensation........... $950,000
Total compensation with deductions $430,000
Some families with larger insurance policies would receive
even less or possibly no money at all.
The Federal Government also requires that every victim who
accepts payment from the fund must waive the right to sue the airline
industry."
Note the sentence "Some families with larger insurance policies would
receive even less or possibly no money at all."
But then where are you getting your information about who had applied
for the fund? According to CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/23/victims.fund/
There was a late surge in applications. And also, passengers may have
collected directly from the airlines which would have negated any
benefits that they would have received from the compensation fund. So
how many of the passengers collected from the airlines? Even with the
$1.5 billion per airplane cap, passengers could have collected around
$2 million each from the airlines.
***end quote***
>ELLEN MARIANI's husband Louis was killed on this flight. She had
>requested the passenger list several times and kept getting the run
>around. After finally getting the list she tried to contact other
>family members who lost loved ones on the flight as well.
>Well apparently she is the only living family member of every
>passenger and crew member on that flight, because she has
>been unable to find even one family member to anyone else
>supposedly on the flight. Odd.
From the same previous email just quoted above:
Yes, it is, since Peter Burton Hanson called his father from the
flight.
Madeline Sweeney's husband Michael Sweeney, of Acton, Mass. and
children, Jack, 4, and Anna, 6, are still alive.
John Ogonowski's wife, Peggy, and their three children are still quite
alive.
Just to name a few.
>For the total 38 passengers there were 5 flight attendants, which
>comes out to 1 attendant for every 7 passengers. 38 passengers
>on a cross country flight, on an airliner that holds 230+ passengers.
>Amazing.
Again, from the same previous email just quoted above:
And flight attendants are not assigned based on the aircraft loading.
>Also, Mark Bingham, who's mother claimed he called her and left a
>message before they crashed, saying " Mom, this is your son Mark
>Bingham ", now why on earth would someone say to their mother, this is
>your son and give his full name ? I remember his mom stating this to a
>reporter on the news, and thought even then how strange it was for
>someone to give their full name when it was his own mother.
You do know that his real name was Jerry and his mother called him
Kerry when he was young, don't you? And it couldn't possibly have had
anything to do with the stress of the moment…
<snip>
>Now one would think they would be certainly interested in just
>how it was that 19 supposed hijackers not only managed to get
>past the passenger security check without tickets, by even
>managed to get past the boarding gates without boarding passes.
The hijackers had tickets and boarding passes. Some were even videoed
coming through airport security.
>Amazing how the government also claimed with their official story that
>flight # 93 went down in Pennsylvania, which had the tail registration
>#N591UA and nose registration # 5491.
>
>Maybe Bush and his lying government can explain how Capt Friedman
>with Untied Airlines, on April 10, 2003 just happened to be flying
>a 757, flight # 1111, from ORD leaving gate C20, and arrived in LAS
>at gate D39 with the same tail registration # N591UA and nose
>registration # 5491, a year and a half after it supposedly crashed ?
Again, from one of the posts cited above:
It's already been shown that Friedman mad a mistake. The Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov) lists Flight 1111 on April 10,
2003. Except the aircraft that was used was N594UA, not N591UA.
Capt. Friedman misread a 1 for a 4.
And in addition, here's what Capt. Friedman has to say about it on his
website:
"Important note: I have received many inquiries regarding the flight
on 4/10/03 onboard United Airlines flight 1111. I am not trying to get
into the middle of a conspiracy theory. I simply took notes on the
aircraft's nose and tail numbers before boarding each flight. Is there
a chance that I captured one or the other numbers incorrectly?
Certainly. Is it likely that both would have been incorrect? Not
really, but it's certainly possible. Is it really something I'm
concerned about? Absolutely not. This was intended solely as a fun
project to track my flights, a project which was derailed by
heightened security concerns - people became too "alerted" when I
would start making notes and taking pictures, so I stopped doing it.
If you have a problem with the data on my page, well, you probably
need to find more outside hobbies."
<snip the rest that doesn't have anything to do with 9/11>
USA, a Dictatorship, not a democracy
<frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>It would make more sense to try to find a structural engineer to
>comment. What is a "Military Expert" supposed to know about structural
>collapse. Even demolition experts have trouble predicting the result of
>controlled demolitions. That is why their insurance is so expensive.
>
Exactly, so I certainly have to question the BS given out by the
government claiming a plane, and jet fuel brought down 3 perfectly
imploded buildings, all within hours of each other no less.
Perhaps the "military expert" is an engineer, or possibly a demolition
expert, or even both.
His explanation makes sense, and would account for the two seismic
recordings that morning, just seconds before each tower went down.
Like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
I did find the following just after the attack on 9/11 and found it
rather interesting.
The so called experts backing up the government's BS claim how steel
columns covered in fire retardant material, between concrete slabs
softened in less than 10 minutes, (based on firefighters transcripts
who were on the scene within 5 minutes being located across the
street) was supposedly a University of Colorado civil engineering
professor and who was supposedly the WTC construction manager, named
Hyman Brown.
Now with all the engineers in this country, one would think the news
media could find just one engineer who wasn't connected to the
government to back up the BS put out by the government, now wouldn't
you ?
Below is the news story about a so called Professor Hyman Brown and
his quotes about what caused the WTC building to collapse :
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/11_APhitstoomuch.html
I did a search about this news article, and about Hyman Brown.
Some very interesting information came up.
First, Hyman Brown was only a Senior Instructor - Construction
Management, not a Professor as stated.
Secondly, there's two different sets of URL's leading to the civil
engineering dept for this University. The first set of URL's has the
company name of Bechtel included in the URL.
http://bechtel.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?faculty
http://bechtel.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?brown
Odd. Now why would a university have the name of a Corp included in
their URL ? Second Red Flag, first claiming Hyman Brown was something
he wasn't.
It gets more interesting.
Bechtel, as in the same Bechtel Corp that Rumsfeld was once President
of, who even made deals with Saddam on behalf of Bechtel during Reagan
administration,
http://www.radioproject.org/archive/2003/2103.html
And Bechtel just happens to be sharing the contracts to rebuild Iraq
along with Halliburton, having already received billions in government
contracts without bidding, and very little work in return, just like
with Halliburton.
Bechtel Corp happens to be long time buddies of the Bush's, and
Rumsfeld, even received billions in contracts to rebuild the water
and sewer plant's Bush Sr intentionally bombed when he lied to
invaded Iraq. Just like they have this time with Bush Jr. Like
father, like son.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/11/BU141131.DTL
And it gets better. The third red flag is the fact that the Bechtel
URL's shows one person as Hyman Brown, and the civil.colorado.edu URL
shows a totally different person as Hyman Brown.
http://bechtel.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?faculty
http://bechtel.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?brown
The URL without Bechtel's name for the University of Colorado shows
the faculty, and happens to show a totally different person as being
Hyman Brown :
http://civil.colorado.edu/web/people/index.html
Will the real Hyman Brown stand up, if he even exists at all.
Another "Expert" named was Masoud Sanayei, from Tuft University,
also connected to Bechtel.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:_OR0PrkQ_swJ:www.fstinc.com/aab.pdf+Masoud+Sanayei+bechtel&hl=en
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:5ZI4UUj3HNQJ:www.nees.org/NCI/docs/Consortium_Web_Roster.pdf+Masoud+Sanayei+bechtel&hl=en
Another odd facts was that two different demolition companies recanted
their original statements of the towers imploding as though they had
been brought down by demolition. One of those companies did the clean
up at the WTC, as well as the building in Oklahoma.
It's amazing how the government's investigations claim the impossible
having been done.
Another prime example would be the government's claim with their
investigation into the assassination of Dr. King Jr., that James E.
Ray was the lone assassin. And claimed the FBI tested the rifle they
recovered, confirming it was the murder weapon.
Now keep in mind the government has never been one for details,
or accuracy, and for good reason.
During the non-media coverage of the trial in Nov-Dec 1999, held in
Memphis, TN, the following information came out in testimonies.
"James E. Ray was a patsy, just as Lee H. Oswald had been."
"James E. Ray wasn't in Memphis, TN on the day of the assassination"
"Lieutenant Earl Clark, and two special op agents as backup were the
assassins"
The rifle the FBI claimed was tested and the murder weapon,
"The scope had never been calibrated, and would have missed hitting
Dr. King Jr by 2-4 feet". Thus impossible of being the murder weapon.
"The actual rifle which was used is laying at the bottom of the
Mississippi River."
The jury, after 90 minutes of deliberation, found the US government,
the State of TN, the Memphis, TN law enforcement and others, guilty
for the conspiracy and assassination of Dr. King Jr.
Apparently the news media felt the American people wouldn't be
interested in knowing their government doesn't have a problem
assassinating a President, and other high profile people, in
order to profit financially.
Dr. King Jr wasn't assassinated for his civil rights movement, but
because his anti-war movement was becoming a threat, just as President
Kennedy had become regarding Vietnam. Billions in profit were at
stake, and the greedy, power hungry scum in government weren't going
to risk loosing billions in personal profit from the war. So you
eliminate the threats, and they did. Johnson immediately upon taking
office reversed President Kennedy's order to start bringing the
troops home.
There's only one reason why the government investigates themselves,
or appoints those who will. To protect the lowest scum in government,
and their crimes against human rights, humanity, and to fill their
bank accounts.
Bush Jr obstructed justice for two years preventing and blocking any
and all investigations after the 9/11 attack, until all the evidence
had been removed.
Apparently the law of obstructing justice only applies to common
American's. And someone really needs to get Bush a dictionary, as
appointed doesn't mean independent.
Common sense, if it had been "terrorists" as the government claimed,
and supposedly terrorists have no regard for life, and really wanted
to do as much damage as possible, one would think they would have
targeted a nuclear plant, but didn't.
Instead, they hit the WTC, which just happened to be loosing a lot of
money from empty office space, and the fact it was going to cost over
$200 million to remove the asbestos from the buildings.
Also, why did the supposed hijackers waste time by flying around,
risking the chance of being caught, rather than flying directly
to their intended targets ? With flying around you would think
it was to hit their intended targets all at the same time, but
wasn't the case.
I would love to hear what lies the government can come up with to
explain the following :
Flight # 11, 92 crew/passengers, including two pilots and 9 stewards
on the flight.
Only 20 ( 22%) are listed in the social security death database.
Only 3 family members of the 92 on board collected $1.8 million
each from the government's Compensation Fund for the loss of
their loved one.
All 3 were passengers, no crew members.
Judy Larocque
Laurie Neira
Candace Lee Williams
Flight # 77, 64 people, which includes 6 crew, 4 were attendants
ELLEN MARIANI's husband Louis was killed on this flight. She had
requested the passenger list several times and kept getting the run
around. After finally getting the list she tried to contact other
family members who lost loved ones on the flight as well.
Well apparently she is the only living family member of every
passenger and crew member on that flight, because she has
been unable to find even one family member to anyone else
supposedly on the flight. Odd.
Flight # 93 had 45 on the flight, including 5 flight attendants, 2
pilots, 38 passengers.
6 passengers are listed in the social security death database (13% ),
not one crew member.
Of the 45 total onboard, not one is on the Compensation Fund list.
For the total 38 passengers there were 5 flight attendants, which
comes out to 1 attendant for every 7 passengers. 38 passengers
on a cross country flight, on an airliner that holds 230+ passengers.
Amazing.
Also, Mark Bingham, who's mother claimed he called her and left a
message before they crashed, saying " Mom, this is your son Mark
Bingham ", now why on earth would someone say to their mother, this is
your son and give his full name ? I remember his mom stating this to a
reporter on the news, and thought even then how strange it was for
someone to give their full name when it was his own mother.
Now as greedy as most people are, it's amazing how only 11 families
out of the 266 people on all 4 flights collected $1.8 million each,
from the governments Compensation Fund.
If that isn't a red flag, I don't know what is.
And of those 11, only one was a crew member, a flight attendant,
the other 10 were passengers.
Flight # 77 had a total of 58 passengers, yet had 4 attendants,
Flight # 93 had a total of 38 passengers yet had 5 attendants
Flight # 11 had a total of 81 passengers yet had 9 attendants
Flight # 11 had a total of 56 passengers yet had 7 attendants
Wow, that's 25 attendants for 4 flights, serving the amount of
passengers you would find on one full flight.
I don't know about anyone else, but I've done a hell of a lot of
flying cross country and international for over 35 years, 99% being
early morning flights, or red eye, with all being nearly full, if not
full flights, and the maximum flight attendants on a flight was 7,
average was 5-6, but certainly never 25.
Also, it wasn't terrorists who were in charge of airport security at
all three airports, but in fact was Wackenhut Security.
Now supposedly it was the BS appointed 9/11 commission by Bush, after
the evidence was removed of course, who was supposed to find out how
9/11 could have happened in the first place.
Now one would think they would be certainly interested in just how it
was that 19 supposed hijackers not only managed to get past the
passenger security check without tickets, by even managed to get past
the boarding gates without boarding passes.
Yet Wackenhut Security was never questioned by the 9/11 commission.
Hummmmmmm. It wouldn't be because they just happen to buddies of the
Bush's, ex-CIA/FBI agents, and happen to receive 98% of all government
security contracts, or that Bush teamed them up with FEMA, or possibly
because Wackenhut Security recently replaced the security at both West
Point and Annapolis now could it ?
A few more facts Bush just can't seem to explain away :
Amazing how the government also claimed with their official story that
flight # 93 went down in Pennsylvania, which had the tail registration
#N591UA and nose registration # 5491.
Maybe Bush and his lying government can explain how Capt Friedman
with Untied Airlines, on April 10, 2003 just happened to be flying
a 757, flight # 1111, from ORD leaving gate C20, and arrived in LAS
at gate D39 with the same tail registration # N591UA and nose
registration # 5491, a year and a half after it supposedly crashed ?
Since Capt Friedman did a lot of flying, he decided he would keep a
All the above are facts, not conspiracy theories. The evidence is
beyond overwhelming, and what evidence do we have it was terrorists ?
Bush's word, and the video tapes provided by the government, proven to
be phony. They even did a lousy job for the look alike of Bin Laden.
To short, to heavy, a round face rather than long and thin, no neck,
when Bin Laden's height and built is like a giraffe.
And the hole they continue to dig, just keeps getting deeper. But one
conciliation is the fact on judgment day, all their lies, money and
blaming others, won't save them from their fate.
>User1 wrote:
>
>> View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center
>> collapsed
>>
>snip
andyc...@hotmail.com
It's interesting how you consider everyone else to be a conspiracy
kook. It's not Phasmatis who is arrogant, it's you. You are derisory
toward anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion as you. But what makes
your view so credible? Bush and the neo-cons are proven liars. Why do
you insist on everyone else believing them just because you do? Are you
some sort of superior human, and so you know best? Have you got access
to information that we don't? Is that why you promote your 'theories'
so forcefully?
Because at the end of the day, that's all your opinion is, just a
theory, the same as everyone else. Is it the fact that the President of
the USA say's 'this is how it happened' that makes you so sure? You
castigate Phasmatis about his knowledge of history, but if you
practiced what you preach, you would be aware that through-out history,
the methods of using fear as a weapon to create support for certain
agendas is tried and tested. Hitler convinced the Germans that other
countries were attacking them, and used the media to support this view.
Nothing new there, it's just that the plots get more elaborate.
Andy
age...@justicespammail.com
democracy" <USA, a Dictatorship, not a democracy> wrote:
>Now with all the engineers in this country, one would think the news
>media could find just one engineer who wasn't connected to the
>government to back up the BS put out by the government, now wouldn't
>you ?
There are lots of them. You just ignore them.
age...@justicespammail.com
> On 14 Feb 2006 21:22:38 -0800, "Phasmatis" <quan...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> >> >> >Yes, I'm a conspiracy wacko.
<snip>
>It's interesting how you consider everyone else to be a conspiracy
>kook.
Actually, if you could read, you would know that he freely admits it.
>It's not Phasmatis who is arrogant, it's you. You are derisory
>toward anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion as you. But what makes
>your view so credible? Bush and the neo-cons are proven liars.
I don't depend on Bush for my information.
> Because at the end of the day, that's all your opinion is, just a
>theory, the same as everyone else.
Not really. What I've said has reality and facts to back it up.
>Is it the fact that the President of
>the USA say's 'this is how it happened' that makes you so sure?
No, it's what professional engineers say that makes me so sure. I
wouldn't believe Bush if he said the sky was blue.
andyc...@hotmail.com
age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2006 16:42:04 -0800, andyc...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On 14 Feb 2006 21:22:38 -0800, "Phasmatis" <quan...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >Yes, I'm a conspiracy wacko.
>
> <snip>
>
> >It's interesting how you consider everyone else to be a conspiracy
> >kook.
>
> Actually, if you could read, you would know that he freely admits it.
Actually, I did read it, so how do you come to the conclusion that he's
arrogant?
> >It's not Phasmatis who is arrogant, it's you. You are derisory
> >toward anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion as you. But what makes
> >your view so credible? Bush and the neo-cons are proven liars.
>
> I don't depend on Bush for my information.
You could have fooled me .
>
> > Because at the end of the day, that's all your opinion is, just a
> >theory, the same as everyone else.
>
> Not really. What I've said has reality and facts to back it up.
So anything you say is a fact, anyone else's statements are theories.
Ok, yeah..........
>
> >Is it the fact that the President of
> >the USA say's 'this is how it happened' that makes you so sure?
>
> No, it's what professional engineers say that makes me so sure. I
> wouldn't believe Bush if he said the sky was blue.
Physicists and engineers opinions vary considerably...... but you
believe or accept the ones that happen to concur with your
interpretation of events. That in no way proves that you are right.
Andy
USA, a Dictatorship, not a democracy
Then of course you can explain why there wasn't even one hijacker name
included on even one offical passenger list, right ? It would have
been a little obvious if they had used a western name like Bill Smith,
don't you think ?
The video you're referring to was the one released the day the
commission report came out, 3 years after the attack. I guess
they're a little slow in removing the film from the airport
camera's. If you'll watch the video, it's amazing how a mounted
video camera just happens to follow the hijackers around the
security area, and also has in the background the new bomb
detecting equipment that wasn't placed in airports until after
the 9/11 attack.
And let's not leave out the fact that 8 of the so called hijackers
have been proven to be alive.
What's even more amazing is Bush claims Bin Laden was the mastermind
and behind the attacks, without any evidence, yet one has to wonder
why it is on the FBI's own web page on Bin Laden, it not only doesn't
mention one word about 9/11, much less he's wanted regarding the
attack. Yet, does mention he's wanted for questioning for other
bombings.
Perhaps if you hadn't deleted part of my post, you could have read
the following :
1. Some have claimed he wrote down the wrong number. Unlikely
given the fact both numbers he wrote down were the exact same
numbers assigned to flight #93. If he had written down the
tail number wrong for example, then it wouldn't have matched
up with the nose registration number assigned to flight # 93,
or any other aircraft.
2. And what would the chances be of writing both numbers wrong,
yet both wrong numbers just happen to be an exact match to the
two registered numbers assigned to that of aircraft flight #93,
which the government claims crashed on 9/11 ? A trillion to
one ?
When an aircraft crashes, it's listed as such, and out of service
on the FAA's website. Yet the aircraft for flight #93 was listed as
in service until Sept 2005, 4 years after the attack, then listed
as crashed after Capt. Friedman's log showed up showing he flew
that aircraft on April 10, 2003 and someone recognized the
registration numbers as those assigned to flight #93.
><snip the rest that doesn't have anything to do with 9/11>
part you deleted :
Bush claimed Bin Laden was the mastermind, and behind the attacks
on 9/11, so one has to wonder why he stated the following in a
press conference on March 6, 2003 :
"First, thanks to the hard work of American and Pakistani officials,
we captured the mastermind of the September 11th attacks against our
nation.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed conceived and planned the hijackings and
directed the actions of the hijackers. We believe his capture will
further disrupt the terror network and their planning for additional
attacks."
So how is it the above doesn't have anything to do with 9/11 ?
Apparently you've already forgotten the lies Bush used to bomb
the hell out of two nations in the first place, lying about the
evidence, just as his father did.
Bush's lied to invade the middle east :
From an interview by Amy Goodman with
* Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst.
* David MacMichael, former CIA analyst.
RAY MCGOVERN Alan Foley ? Alan announced just three
days ago that he was leaving, and he was head of the
analytic section that had purview over weapons of mass
destruction. It was he who suggested that those sixteen
offending words not be included in the president's State
of the Union address. He was finally arm twisted into
condoning that, with the assurance that it would be
blamed on the British.
AMY GOODMAN But Alan Foley said "we know this
not to be true". And they said well, why don’t
we just leave that part out and say that the
British say it’s true?
RAY MCGOVERN We'll use it anyway and we'll pin
it on the British report. I watched the speech.
We all watched the speech. When the President
says the British have learned something, the
presumption is the President is telling the
truth. But the President was not telling the
truth and everyone knew that.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4736.htm
And tell that to the families of the hundreds of thousands who are
dead, homeless, from Bush bombing the hell out of their countries.
Including two children's hospital's filled with defenseless, sick
children.
26 Mar 2003 - Rutbah children's hospital aerial bombardment
02 Apr 2003 9:30AM Red Crescent maternity hospital and vicinity,
Baghdad nearby Government buildings aerial bombardment
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/bodycount38.php?ts=1119286382
04 Apr 2003 - 04 May 2003 - Al-Alwiyah Children's Hospital,
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/bodycount37.php?ts=1119286563
And let's not leave out intentionally bombing Baghdad water
purification system, their dams, reservoirs, water and sewage
systems, which BTW is against the Geneva treaty. They've caused
the sewage to flow into the Tigress River, contaminating the
water causing massive deaths by disease, and massive water
shortage, just as his father did.
http://www.ummah.net/waragainstislam/western.htm
And guess who got the contracts without bidding both times ? You
guessed it, their good buddies at Bechtel Corp. Who have raped
America for billions to fill their bank accounts. Hell, even
Halliburton, who has been found guilty for ripping off the
government FOUR times now, and to reward them for their
crimes, they've received a $10 million dollar bonus, and
who says crime doesn't pay ?
Intentionally contaminating the Iraqi people, the land, water, air,
even our own soldiers with depleted uranium, just as Bush Sr
did in 1990/91.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082304W.shtml
I guess when you've told as many lies as Bush has trying to convince
the American people it was foreign terrorists who attacked America
on 9/11, it's hard to keep those lies straight.
Oh, and for the record, I have two relatives who went to Iraq to
fight, and both have stated : "if they knew then, what they know
now, they would have never gone." both referring to all the lies
being told by the government.
The government can keep trying to discredit the truth, but people
aren't buying their BS, and are waking up. Like my relatives have
said, let the government go fight their wars for profit, and do
their own dirty work of mass murdering innocent lives, intentionally
keeping a shortage of water, still only 3% with electricity, etc.
Friends like the American government/CIA, who needs enemies. They
certainly give a whole new meaning to liberation, freedom, bar none.
Whether you want to face the fact or not, it doesn't change the facts
the US government/CIA is the largest terrorist network in the world,
committing more atrocities against humanity around the world, than
all other nations combined. Guilty of killing over 6 million in the
80's alone.
All for power and their greed for money. Human life means nothing to
them, and that includes you.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082304W.shtml
USA, a Dictatorship, not a democracy
wrote:
>usa:
No problem, if you want to send me an email, I'll be happy to send
them to you. The reason being, it's amazing how some sites seem to
disappear once they've been posted in newsgroups. That's why I not
only get the URL, but the entire article, just in case a site does
get removed. And there's only one reason why a site/article is
removed. If it were lies, then it wouldn't be a threat, and the
government would bother with it.
You can email me at :
removing the word "at" in athotmail
USA, a Dictatorship, not a democracy
Gee, then why didn't you post a few ?
Rather than deleting my post in response to "Frank F. Matthews"
I responded to, which I've included below for those interested.
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:38:09 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
<frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>It would make more sense to try to find a structural engineer to
>comment. What is a "Military Expert" supposed to know about structural
>collapse. Even demolition experts have trouble predicting the result of
>controlled demolitions. That is why their insurance is so expensive.
>
Exactly, so I certainly have to question the BS given out by the
government claiming a plane, and jet fuel brought down 3 perfectly
imploded buildings, all within hours of each other no less.
Perhaps the "military expert" is an engineer, or possibly a demolition
expert, or even both.
His explanation makes sense, and would account for the two seismic
recordings that morning, just seconds before each tower went down.
Like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
I did find the following just after the attack on 9/11 and found it
rather interesting.
The so called experts backing up the government's BS claim how steel
columns covered in fire retardant material, between concrete slabs
softened in less than 10 minutes, (based on firefighters transcripts
who were on the scene within 5 minutes being located across the
street) was supposedly a University of Colorado civil engineering
professor and who was supposedly the WTC construction manager, named
Hyman Brown.
Now with all the engineers in this country, one would think the news
media could find just one engineer who wasn't connected to the
government to back up the BS put out by the government, now wouldn't
you ?
Below is the news story about a so called Professor Hyman Brown and
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/11_APhitstoomuch.html
http://bechtel.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?faculty
http://bechtel.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?brown
It gets more interesting.
http://www.radioproject.org/archive/2003/2103.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/03/11/BU141131.DTL
http://bechtel.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?faculty
http://bechtel.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?brown
http://civil.colorado.edu/web/people/index.html
george
USA, a Dictatorship, not a democracy wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:58:50 -0500, age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:12:05 -0800, "USA, a Dictatorship, not a
> >democracy" <USA, a Dictatorship, not a democracy> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Now with all the engineers in this country, one would think the news
> >>media could find just one engineer who wasn't connected to the
> >>government to back up the BS put out by the government, now wouldn't
> >>you ?
> >
> >There are lots of them. You just ignore them.
>
> Gee, then why didn't you post a few ?
>
consultant engineers
http://www.dotphoto.com/GuestViewImage.asp?AID=107692&IID=3566672&INU
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3&c=y
Phasmatis
andyc...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> It's interesting how you consider everyone else to be a conspiracy
> kook. It's not Phasmatis who is arrogant, it's you. You are derisory
> toward anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion as you. But what makes
> your view so credible? Bush and the neo-cons are proven liars. Why do
> you insist on everyone else believing them just because you do? Are you
> some sort of superior human, and so you know best? Have you got access
> to information that we don't? Is that why you promote your 'theories'
> so forcefully?
> Because at the end of the day, that's all your opinion is, just a
> theory, the same as everyone else. Is it the fact that the President of
> the USA say's 'this is how it happened' that makes you so sure? You
> castigate Phasmatis about his knowledge of history, but if you
> practiced what you preach, you would be aware that through-out history,
> the methods of using fear as a weapon to create support for certain
> agendas is tried and tested. Hitler convinced the Germans that other
> countries were attacking them, and used the media to support this view.
> Nothing new there, it's just that the plots get more elaborate.
>
> Andy
Andy, I would like to thank you for coming to my defense in this
matter.
However, I also feel I need to address agent86 myself.
-I was born in 1987.
-I am a freshman in college.
-My factual information mostly comes from my US History class in the
11th grade. I never took a civics class and to my knowledge my high
school did not provide one.
-My forte is in the arts. I am not a history buff, and conspiracy
theories are not my most favorite pastime. Thus, I tend to use my spare
time doing other things than research.
86, there's this thing called learning. We're always doing it, in every
moment of our lives. When we learn something new, we use the knowledge
as best as we can in the real world. When we learn something that
contradicts what we learned before, we pause, compare, and re-evaluate.
When someone else provides us with this knowledge, we are grateful for
it.
When someone provides us with this knowledge, and then tells us how
stupid we are for not already knowing it, our gratitude is much harder
to find.
My stance in issues, like yours, is based on what I already know and
what I learn in the process. I am fully aware that a single terrorist
act is not a basis for martial law; I believe I acknowledged in my
original posting of the theory that the likelihood of success for that
conspiracy was not relatively high. Now that I know about the Sedition
Act of 1861, and have been re-familiarized with the circumstances
surrounding the original Acts, I am at last willing to concede that the
chances of success are low enough that the stated agenda becomes
un-implementable.
Yes, 86, you may finally declare victory over my theory. But know this:
it was strictly your information and knowledge of history, once
provided to me, that allowed you to succeed. Calling me ignorant and
targeting me with sardonic baby insults got you NOWHERE; in fact, this
is the primary reason I continued to argue with you about it. I may not
be as knowledgeable as you about some things, but that does not give
you the right to tell me I am less intelligent than you.
Just for the record, I DID make one citation on the Patriot Act, and I
quote: "(reference Farenheit 9/11)." Michael Moore did interview a man
who claimed he was approached by government investigators about things
he said in his local gym pertaining to the events of the time,
specifically 9/11 and how the Bush administration was handling it. You
completely ignored this citation, whether you consider it credible or
not!
So forgive me for being born in a generation where mass media is used
to supress our desire to seek out all the answers. (OOPS! THERE GOES
ANOTHER ONE! :D ) But I at least try to learn new things, and ask the
questions other people might be too uncomfortable asking for fear of
being tromped on for it. I at least try to consider the other point of
view thoughtfully, and am willing to admit defeat when I know for a
fact I am incorrect. This is a form of intelligence on its own: wisdom.
And as long as i have wisdom, I think the rest of my intelligence will
follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What luck for rulers that men do not think."--Adolf Hitler
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."--Albert Einstein
"For they can conquer who believe they can."--Ralph Waldo Emerson
age...@justicespammail.com
>
>age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2006 16:42:04 -0800, andyc...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > On 14 Feb 2006 21:22:38 -0800, "Phasmatis" <quan...@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >Yes, I'm a conspiracy wacko.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >It's interesting how you consider everyone else to be a conspiracy
>> >kook.
>>
>> Actually, if you could read, you would know that he freely admits it.
>
>Actually, I did read it, so how do you come to the conclusion that he's
>arrogant?
If yoiu think that I called Phasmatis arrogant, then you really can't
read.
>> >It's not Phasmatis who is arrogant, it's you. You are derisory
>> >toward anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion as you. But what makes
>> >your view so credible? Bush and the neo-cons are proven liars.
>>
>> I don't depend on Bush for my information.
>
>You could have fooled me .
Conspiracy wackos like you are easily fooled.
>> > Because at the end of the day, that's all your opinion is, just a
>> >theory, the same as everyone else.
>>
>> Not really. What I've said has reality and facts to back it up.
>
>So anything you say is a fact,
Since I rarely say anything that isn't sourced, that would be correct.
>anyone else's statements are theories.
Only conspiracy wacko statement that are unsupported in reality.
>> >Is it the fact that the President of
>> >the USA say's 'this is how it happened' that makes you so sure?
>>
>> No, it's what professional engineers say that makes me so sure. I
>> wouldn't believe Bush if he said the sky was blue.
>
>Physicists and engineers opinions vary considerably......
Not really if you exclude people like conspiracy wacko physicists who
believe in cold fusion and that Jesus visited America.
>but you
>believe or accept the ones that happen to concur with your
>interpretation of events.
Pot, Kettle, black. But please cite a structural engineer who agrees
with your "theories" of the collapse of the WTC.
>That in no way proves that you are right.
Only in your fantasy, conspiracy wacko mind, sparky.
age...@justicespammail.com
democracy" <USA, a Dictatorship, not a democracy> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:48:09 -0500, age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
<snip several hundred lines of totally unrefuted debunking - remember
that "USA" has complained bitterly in another post that he/she hasn't
been refuted>
>>>Now one would think they would be certainly interested in just
>>>how it was that 19 supposed hijackers not only managed to get
>>>past the passenger security check without tickets, by even
>>>managed to get past the boarding gates without boarding passes.
>>
>>The hijackers had tickets and boarding passes. Some were even videoed
>>coming through airport security.
>>
>Then of course you can explain why there wasn't even one hijacker name
>included on even one offical passenger list, right ?
Please cite an "official passenger list", won't you?
The Boston Globe reported a complete manifest that included the names
of the hijackers. All other media reports were lists of victims and
intentionally deleted the hijackers names.
>The video you're referring to was the one released the day the
>commission report came out, 3 years after the attack. I guess
>they're a little slow in removing the film from the airport
>camera's. If you'll watch the video, it's amazing how a mounted
>video camera just happens to follow the hijackers around the
>security area,
No, it doesn't.
>and also has in the background the new bomb
>detecting equipment that wasn't placed in airports until after
>the 9/11 attack.
And no, there is no "new bomb detecting equipment" in the background.
You're just lying.
>And let's not leave out the fact that 8 of the so called hijackers
>have been proven to be alive.
No, actually they haven't. The hijackers are all dead. As I've cited
before:
From: agen...@justicespammail.com
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: So we know How the towers fell, but do we know who did
it?
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 13:47:46 -0500
http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_mckinneysucks_archive.html
"The authors explain in great detail the anatomy of one of the more
popular internet memes associated with 9/11 -- that many of the
hijackers are still alive:
Take the BBC, for example, which did in fact report, on September
23, 2001, that some of the alleged terrorists were alive and healthy
and had protested their being named as assassins.
But there is one wrinkle. The BBC journalist responsible for the
story only recalls this supposed sensation after having been told the
date on which the story aired. "No, we did not have any videotape or
photographs of the individuals in question at that time," he says, and
tells us that the report was based on articles in Arab newspapers,
such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper.
The operator at the call center has the number for the Arab News
on speed dial. We make a call to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. A few seconds
later, Managing Editor John Bradley is on the line. When we tell
Bradley our story, he snorts and says: "That's ridiculous! People here
stopped talking about that a long time ago."
Bradley tells us that at the time his reporters did not speak
directly with the so-called "survivors," but instead combined reports
from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a
time when the only public information about the attackers was a list
of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI
did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports,
on September 27th.
The photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving
terrorists. According to Bradley, "all of this is attributable to the
chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack.
What we're dealing with are coincidentally identical names." In Saudi
Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving
attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are "as common as John
Smith in the United States or Great Britain."
The final explanation is provided by the newspaper Asharq
Al-Awsat, one of the sources of Arab News, which in turn serves as a
source to the BBC. Mohammed Samman is the name of the reporter who
interviewed a man named Said al-Ghamdi in Tunis, only to find that
al-Ghamdi was quite horrified to discover his name on the FBI list of
assassins.
Samman remembers his big story well. "That was a wonderful story,"
he says. And that's all it was. It had nothing to do with the version
made up of Br?ckers' and Bülow's combined fantasies.
"The problem," says Samman, "was that after the first FBI list had
been published, CNN released a photo of the pilot Said al-Ghamdi that
had been obtained from the files of those Saudi pilots who had at some
point received official flight training in the United States."
After Samman's story was reported by the news agencies, he was
contacted by CNN. "I gave them Ghamdi's telephone number. The CNN
people talked to the pilot and apologized profusely. The whole thing
was quite obviously a mix-up. The Ghamdi family is one of the largest
families in Saudi Arabia, and there are thousands of men named Said
al-Ghamdi."
When we ask Samman to take another look at the FBI's list of
photographs, he is more than happy to oblige, and tells us: "The
Ghamdi on the photo is not the pilot with whom I spoke."
The investigative journalists should have been able to figure out
just how obvious the solution to this puzzle was. They all write that
a man named Abd al-Asis al-Umari had been named as a perpetrator by
the FBI, and that there are apparently many individuals with this
name. Br?ckers and Hau? even noticed that the FBI had initially
released an incorrect first name to the press. All of this certainly
suggests that there was a mix-up, but it's also something that the
conspiracy theorists apparently did not consider plausible.
In the case of the supposedly surviving terrorist Walid al-Shari,
the truth is even more obvious. At least Bülow had the opportunity to
avoid making this mistake. In his book, he writes that the alleged
assassin Shari "lives in Casablanca and works as a pilot, according to
information provided by the airline Royal Air Maroc."
If Bülow had inquired with the airline, he would have discovered
that the name of the pilot who lives in Casablanca is Walid al-Shri
and not, like that of the assassin, Walid al-Shari. This minor detail
makes a big difference, namely the difference between a dead terrorist
and a living innocent man. But to conspiracy theorists, discovering
the truth is like solving a crossword puzzle for children: What's a
four-letter word for a domesticated animal? Hrse.
While doing research for my conspiracy page last year, I had e-mailed
several different desks at the BBC to inform them that their story was
being used all over the internet as grist for these conspiracy
theories, and asked if they had ever followed up on their apparent
bombshell story. How, I asked, could they just do one story on such an
accusation, and never make an attempt at closure one way or the other.
I never got an answer. I'm afraid that's all too common in journalism
today. Headlines like "Initial Reports Proven Untrue" just don't sell
newspapers, and I guess there just isn't a commensurate sense of
accountability among reporters and their editors to clear up
speculative nonsense for which they were responsible in the first
place.
Later, the Philly Daily News ran an "unanswered questions" piece that
included the same "hijackers still living" canard. I e-mailed the
columnist, Will Bunch, primarily to inform him that one of those
still-living hijackers was recently featured on an al-qaeda recruiting
video -- reading his will, no less. I also asked him why he didn't try
to solve any of these mysteries himself, rather than whining, "So why
did this story line vanish into thin air?" A rather odd question for a
reporter to be asking his readers, I thought.
Bunch's response: "I'm a good reporter, but if I tried to solve all 20
questions myself I'd be 96 years old by the time I was done!" With
this level of laziness among professional journalists, it's no wonder
the conspiracy loons are able to point to so many "inconsistencies"
and "unanswered questions." "
***end quote***
>What's even more amazing is Bush claims Bin Laden was the mastermind
>and behind the attacks, without any evidence,
Only Bin Laden's confession on video.
I only deleted your speculation. When you want to provide something
factual, you'll have less chance of having it deleted.
>When an aircraft crashes, it's listed as such, and out of service
>on the FAA's website.
Only if it's changed by the airline.
>Yet the aircraft for flight #93 was listed as
>in service until Sept 2005,
No, you don't understand what the listing means. It doesn't mean that
it is "in service".
age...@justicespammail.com
democracy" <USA, a Dictatorship, not a democracy> wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 21:58:50 -0500, age...@justicespammail.com wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:12:05 -0800, "USA, a Dictatorship, not a
>>democracy" <USA, a Dictatorship, not a democracy> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Now with all the engineers in this country, one would think the news
> >>media could find just one engineer who wasn't connected to the
> >>government to back up the BS put out by the government, now wouldn't
> >>you ?
> >
> >There are lots of them. You just ignore them.
>
> Gee, then why didn't you post a few ?
They've been posted before. You just pretend that they don't exist.
Here's an example from this very thread, posted just two days ago:
From: Sky King <skyk...@scientist.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World
Trade Center collapsed
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:30:17 EST
<snip>
You remember, monoidiot, that it is all explained here and we are
STILL
waiting for you to refute these reports:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
http://www.911myths.com/NISTREPORT.pdf
> Rather than deleting my post in response to "Frank F. Matthews"
> I responded to, which I've included below for those interested.
Sighů
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:38:09 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
> <frankfm...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >It would make more sense to try to find a structural engineer to
> >comment. What is a "Military Expert" supposed to know about structural
> >collapse. Even demolition experts have trouble predicting the result of
> >controlled demolitions. That is why their insurance is so expensive.
> >
> Exactly, so I certainly have to question the BS given out by the
> government claiming a plane, and jet fuel brought down 3 perfectly
> imploded buildings, all within hours of each other no less.
And your training in structual engineering that leads you to this
question is exactly what?
> Perhaps the "military expert" is an engineer, or possibly a demolition
> expert, or even both.
Or perhaps neither. You have no evidence as to what his expertise is.
> His explanation makes sense, and would account for the two seismic
> recordings that morning, just seconds before each tower went down.
> Like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Only to idiots who can't read. If you want to try:
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/story11_16_01.html
You'll find no question about anomalous seismic recordings before the
towers fell.
> I did find the following just after the attack on 9/11 and found it
> rather interesting.
>
> The so called experts backing up the government's BS claim how steel
> columns covered in fire retardant material, between concrete slabs
> softened in less than 10 minutes, (based on firefighters transcripts
> who were on the scene within 5 minutes being located across the
> street)
So exactly how did the firefighters make this assessment before they
entered the towers?
>was supposedly a University of Colorado civil engineering
> professor and who was supposedly the WTC construction manager, named
> Hyman Brown.
And you have proof that he wasn't the WTC construction manager? You
do realize that the WTC was constructed in the late 1960's, don't you?
Do you think that Mr. Brown has done nothing careerwise since that
time? And as to him being a UC professor, is there anything in the
article that says that Mr. Brown made that claim? No? Then would you
think that the author of the article, knowing that Mr. Brown taught at
UC and not thinking that there might be a difference to people who
take things like titles too literally, took a bit of artistic license
and "promoted" Mr. Brown on paper?
> Now with all the engineers in this country, one would think the news
> media could find just one engineer who wasn't connected to the
> government to back up the BS put out by the government, now wouldn't
> you ?
There are lots. I gave you one example above.
> Below is the news story about a so called Professor Hyman Brown and
> his quotes about what caused the WTC building to collapse :
>
> http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/11_APhitstoomuch.html
And that was Mr. Brown's OPINION that he gave on September 11th, based
on the barest of available information. And while the details were
not quite correct, the gist of what he said was.
> I did a search about this news article, and about Hyman Brown.
> Some very interesting information came up.
>
> First, Hyman Brown was only a Senior Instructor - Construction
> Management, not a Professor as stated.
So why don't you complain to the author of the article? Unless, of
course you can prove that Mr. Brown actually made a claim that he was
a professor.
> Secondly, there's two different sets of URL's leading to the civil
> engineering dept for this University. The first set of URL's has the
> company name of Bechtel included in the URL.
> http://bechtel.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?faculty
> http://bechtel.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?brown
>
> Odd. Now why would a university have the name of a Corp included in
> their URL ?
Unless, of course, you would have done just the barest of personal
investigation:
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/research/computing/bechtel/
"History and Purpose
The Bechtel Computing Laboratory was created in 1990 with a generous
grant from the Bechtel Foundation, and is devoted to excellence in
undergraduate education. One goal of this lab is to educate successful
design engineers. We also encourage undergraduate students to take
part in the development of in-house software. This provides employers
with civil engineers that have strong computational skills as well as
top engineering skills."
Gee, what a concept, don't you think? Give a university a lot of
money and they name a lab after you.
> Second Red Flag, first claiming Hyman Brown was something
> he wasn't.
You first have to prove that Hyman Brown made such claim.
<snip the conspriacy wacko explanation about Bechtel>
> And it gets better. The third red flag is the fact that the Bechtel
> URL's shows one person as Hyman Brown, and the civil.colorado.edu URL
> shows a totally different person as Hyman Brown.
<snip>
> The URL without Bechtel's name for the University of Colorado shows
> the faculty, and happens to show a totally different person as being
> Hyman Brown :
>
> http://civil.colorado.edu/web/people/index.html
Page doesn't exist anymore, sparky.
> Will the real Hyman Brown stand up, if he even exists at all.
But as I recall from going through this once before, the difference
was merely a matter of the age of the photograph that was used on the
webpage.
If one wants to see the original, the wayback machine has it archived
at:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050309115703/http://civil.colorado.edu/web/people/index.html
> Another "Expert" named was Masoud Sanayei, from Tuft University,
> also connected to Bechtel.
>
> http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:_OR0PrkQ_swJ: www.fstinc.com /aab.pdf+Masoud+Sanayei+bechtel&hl=en
Give us a break! Sanayei edited the Proceedings of Structures
Congress XIII in which a company "Bechtel/Parsons" is mentioned
exactly ONCE. And you want to say that that connects Sanayei to
Bechtel? Gosh you're stupid.
Oh, wow, a structural engineer (Masoud Sanayei) belongs to an
engineering organization (Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation) which also has Bechtel (a major construction company) as
an industry member. What a coincidence. And really a strain to make
a connection.
> Another odd facts was that two different demolition companies recanted
> their original statements of the towers imploding as though they had
> been brought down by demolition. One of those companies did the clean
> up at the WTC, as well as the building in Oklahoma.
No demolition company from the building in Oklahoma had a contract to
clean up at the WTC. From a previous post of mine:
>> Area included the WTC North Tower along West Street. Zone 2: Contractor
>> - Bovis Lend Lease Area included the WTC South Tower along Liberty
>> Street. Zone 3: Contractor - Tulley
>> Area included the east half of the WTC site. Zone 4: Contractor -
>> Turner/Plaza
>> Area included the northern edge of the WTC site and WTC Building 7. Each
>> quadrants was assigned not only a contractor, but also structural
>> engineers, subcontractors and rescue workers. The boundaries changed
>> slightly as the work progressed to accommodate logistic issues."
>> Not a single mention of "Controlled Demolition".
> It's amazing how the government's investigations claim the impossible
> having been done.
Actually, conspiracy wackos are the one claiming that the impossible
has been done.
<skip the rant about the government and unrelated events>
> Bush Jr obstructed justice for two years preventing and blocking any
> and all investigations after the 9/11 attack, until all the evidence
> had been removed.
Except that it hadn't.
<skip rants again>
> Instead, they hit the WTC, which just happened to be loosing a lot of
> money from empty office space,
Prove it.
>and the fact it was going to cost over
> $200 million to remove the asbestos from the buildings.
Prove it. You can start by proving that there were even plans to
remove asbestos from the building, then you can provide a cite to the
cost estimate. But then you don't know that generally, already
applied asbestos is left in place unless it becomes friable. Why?
Because it's too much of a health hazard to remove. So go ahead, have
at it. Provide proof of your assertion.
> Also, why did the supposed hijackers waste time by flying around,
> risking the chance of being caught, rather than flying directly
> to their intended targets ?
None of the hijacked jets "flew around" and wasted time. They took
pretty much direct routes to their targets after they were hijacked.
>With flying around you would think
> it was to hit their intended targets all at the same time, but
> wasn't the case.
The WTC towers were hit within 15 minutes of each other. Considering
that the two aircraft involved took off 15 minutes apart, they spent
about the same amount of time in the air.
> I would love to hear what lies the government can come up with to
> explain the following :
>
>
> Flight # 11, 92 crew/passengers, including two pilots and 9 stewards
> on the flight.
>
> Only 20 ( 22%) are listed in the social security death database.
> Only 3 family members of the 92 on board collected $1.8 million
> each from the government's Compensation Fund for the loss of
> their loved one.
I fully addressed this and the next many paragraphs in a previous
post. It was obviously ignored. But here it is again:
From: agen...@justicespammail.com
Newsgroups:
alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World
Trade Center collapsed
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:48:09 -0500
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:18:49 -0800, "USA, a Dictatorship, not a
democracy" <USA, a Dictatorship, not a democracy> wrote:
>Since you seem to believe the government's claims, without evidence
>I might add, then you shouldn't have a problem explaining the
>following, which are facts, and not conspiracy theories, proving
>it wasn't terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11.
You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the butt.
>Flight # 11, 92 crew/passengers, including two pilots and 9 stewards
>on the flight.
>
>Only 20 ( 22%) are listed in the social security death database.
Your haven't a clue as to what the SSDI is, do you? Here, let's give
(http://www.progenealogists.com/aboutssdi.htm).
Another reference:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~rwguide/lesson10.htm
Lie.
***end quote***
>Only 3 family members of the 92 on board collected $1.8 million
>each from the government's Compensation Fund for the loss of
>their loved one.
>
>All 3 were passengers, no crew members.
>
>Judy Larocque
>Laurie Neira
>Candace Lee Williams
<snip the repetition about the other flights, as with the response on
the SSDI, the answer applies to all>
From: agen...@justicespammail.com
Newsgroups:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.impeach.bush,alt.politics,alt.politics.bush,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: 9/11 strikes : Conclusions of Muhammad Columbo/Sky
Confusor/Agent86
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:47:57 -0500
>Only 3 family members of the 92 on board collected $1.8 million
>each from the government's Compensation Fund for the loss of
>their loved one.
<inserted note- Do these words look familiar?>
http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2002/tows_past_20020131_b.jhtml
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/23/victims.fund/
***end quote***
>ELLEN MARIANI's husband Louis was killed on this flight. She had
>requested the passenger list several times and kept getting the run
>around. After finally getting the list she tried to contact other
>family members who lost loved ones on the flight as well.
>Well apparently she is the only living family member of every
>passenger and crew member on that flight, because she has
>been unable to find even one family member to anyone else
>supposedly on the flight. Odd.
From the same previous email just quoted above:
Yes, it is, since Peter Burton Hanson called his father from the
flight.
Madeline Sweeney's husband Michael Sweeney, of Acton, Mass. and
children, Jack, 4, and Anna, 6, are still alive.
John Ogonowski's wife, Peggy, and their three children are still quite
alive.
Just to name a few.
>For the total 38 passengers there were 5 flight attendants, which
>comes out to 1 attendant for every 7 passengers. 38 passengers
>on a cross country flight, on an airliner that holds 230+ passengers.
>Amazing.
Again, from the same previous email just quoted above:
And flight attendants are not assigned based on the aircraft loading.
>Also, Mark Bingham, who's mother claimed he called her and left a
>message before they crashed, saying " Mom, this is your son Mark
>Bingham ", now why on earth would someone say to their mother, this is
>your son and give his full name ? I remember his mom stating this to a
>reporter on the news, and thought even then how strange it was for
>someone to give their full name when it was his own mother.
You do know that his real name was Jerry and his mother called him
Kerry when he was young, don't you? And it couldn't possibly have had
anything to do with the stress of the momentů
<snip>
>Now one would think they would be certainly interested in just
>how it was that 19 supposed hijackers not only managed to get
>past the passenger security check without tickets, by even
>managed to get past the boarding gates without boarding passes.
The hijackers had tickets and boarding passes. Some were even videoed
coming through airport security.
>Amazing how the government also claimed with their official story that
>flight # 93 went down in Pennsylvania, which had the tail registration
>#N591UA and nose registration # 5491.
>
>Maybe Bush and his lying government can explain how Capt Friedman
>with Untied Airlines, on April 10, 2003 just happened to be flying
>a 757, flight # 1111, from ORD leaving gate C20, and arrived in LAS
>at gate D39 with the same tail registration # N591UA and nose
>registration # 5491, a year and a half after it supposedly crashed ?
Again, from one of the posts cited above:
It's already been shown that Friedman mad a mistake. The Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov) lists Flight 1111 on April 10,
2003. Except the aircraft that was used was N594UA, not N591UA.
Capt. Friedman misread a 1 for a 4.
And in addition, here's what Capt. Friedman has to say about it on his
website:
"Important note: I have received many inquiries regarding the flight
on 4/10/03 onboard United Airlines flight 1111. I am not trying to get
into the middle of a conspiracy theory. I simply took notes on the
aircraft's nose and tail numbers before boarding each flight. Is there
a chance that I captured one or the other numbers incorrectly?
Certainly. Is it likely that both would have been incorrect? Not
really, but it's certainly possible. Is it really something I'm
concerned about? Absolutely not. This was intended solely as a fun
project to track my flights, a project which was derailed by
heightened security concerns - people became too "alerted" when I
would start making notes and taking pictures, so I stopped doing it.
If you have a problem with the data on my page, well, you probably
need to find more outside hobbies."
***end previous post***
> Also, it wasn't terrorists who were in charge of airport security at
> all three airports, but in fact was Wackenhut Security.
Some conspiracy wacko websites claim that a "ůcompany named
Stratesec had an ongoing contractor to handle security at the World
Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down" according to CEO
Barry McDaniel. The company, formerly named Securacom, acquired an
$8.3 million World Trade Center contract in October 1996, according to
SEC filings. The company also provided security for Dulles
International Airport and United Airlines ů"
Wish they would make up their minds.
So now here is yet another post that debunks your "assertions" for you
to ignore.
age...@justicespammail.com
wrote:
>So forgive me for being born in a generation where mass media is used
>to supress our desire to seek out all the answers. (OOPS! THERE GOES
>ANOTHER ONE! :D ) But I at least try to learn new things, and ask the
>questions other people might be too uncomfortable asking for fear of
>being tromped on for it. I at least try to consider the other point of
>view thoughtfully, and am willing to admit defeat when I know for a
>fact I am incorrect. This is a form of intelligence on its own: wisdom.
>And as long as i have wisdom, I think the rest of my intelligence will
>follow.
I suppose there is always hope....
USA, a Dictatorship, not a democracy
wrote:
>usa:
No problem, if you want to send me an email, I'll be happy to send
them to you. The reason being, it's amazing how some sites seem to
disappear once they've been posted in newsgroups. That's why I not
only get the URL, but the entire article, just in case a site does
get removed. And there's only one reason why a site/article is
removed. If it were lies, then it wouldn't be a threat, and the
government would bother with it.
You can email me at :
removing the word "at" in athotmail
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***