Sinister speculations

1 view
Skip to first unread message

dewach...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 5, 2009, 11:33:58 AM1/5/09
to
Theorizing about what happened on 9/11, when you're not being given
answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be
able to do so, is PERFECTLY normal. As is suspecting that the reason
these answers aren't being given is "sinister" in nature.

As Ray McGovern said, "for people to dismiss these questioners as
"conspiratorial advocates," or "conspiratorial theorists.." . that's
completely out of line because the... The questions remain because the
President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT." When you think
about everything this Administration has done in almost 8 years, the
idea that they might not be giving us the answers we seek because of
something "sinister" is not crazy. In fact, it's the most logical
conclusion one can come to at this point. After seven plus years of
obfuscation, spin, lies, and cover-ups regarding the 9/11 attacks, it
is unavoidable to think that criminal complicity is the reason why.

Raymond McGovern (born 1939) is a retired CIA officer turned political
activist. McGovern was a Federal employee under seven U.S. presidents
over 27 years, presenting the morning intelligence briefings at the
White House for many of them.

Read more.....
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090104025547844

David Raleigh Arnold

unread,
Jan 5, 2009, 12:24:35 PM1/5/09
to
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:33:58 -0800, dewachen1000 wrote:

> Theorizing about what happened on 9/11, when you're not being given
> answers to your questions about that day by the people who SHOULD be
> able to do so, is PERFECTLY normal. As is suspecting that the reason
> these answers aren't being given is "sinister" in nature.
>
> As Ray McGovern said, "for people to dismiss these questioners as
> "conspiratorial advocates," or "conspiratorial theorists.." . that's
> completely out of line because the... The questions remain because the
> President who should be able to answer them, WILL NOT." When you think
> about everything this Administration has done in almost 8 years, the
> idea that they might not be giving us the answers we seek because of
> something "sinister" is not crazy.

Maybe not, BUT the nonsense about planted explosives distracts attention
from the guilt of Saudi Arabia in sponsoring the hijackers who actually
did the damage. It is the theorists who are the conspirators. The felling
of the towers was a straightforward act of war, not a conspiracy. Bush's
help in covering it up by directing attention to Iraq was outright
treason, not conspiracy. daveA

--
Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
"Dynamic Guitar Technique": http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
You can play the cards you're dealt, or improve your hand with DGT.
To email go to: http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html

dewach...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 5, 2009, 3:51:57 PM1/5/09
to

Dave you haven't been doing your patriotic homework..... you have much
to learn.

David Raleigh Arnold

unread,
Jan 6, 2009, 4:59:17 AM1/6/09
to

You have to learn that delay in pancakeing was utterly impossible if
planted explosives were the cause of the pancakeing. Do you think
explosive charges were planted with tons of insulation as hard as
steel to delay the effect of the planes' impacts? It's ridiculous.
Utterly. daveA

dewach...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 6, 2009, 11:37:08 PM1/6/09
to

Dave, NIST discounted the pancake theory years ago! As everyone
knows ( except for you) it was ridiculous. They have a new theory
now, I think it's about their third one to date.

David Raleigh Arnold

unread,
Jan 7, 2009, 5:53:05 AM1/7/09
to

You could *see* it pancakeing. What "theory"? That there was no softening
of the steel? Of course there was softening of the steel. daveA

dewach...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 7, 2009, 11:34:51 AM1/7/09
to
> >> >> Technique":http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.htmlYou can play

> >> >> the cards you're dealt, or improve your hand with DGT. To email go
> >> >> to:http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html
>
> >> > Dave you haven't been doing your patriotic homework..... you have
> >> > much to learn.
>
> >> You have to learn that delay in pancakeing was utterly impossible if
> >> planted explosives were the cause of the pancakeing. Do you think
> >> explosive charges were planted with tons of insulation as hard as steel
> >> to delay the effect of the planes' impacts? It's ridiculous. Utterly.
> >> daveA
>
> >   Dave, NIST discounted the pancake theory years ago!
>
> You could *see* it pancakeing. What "theory"? That there was no softening
> of the steel? Of course there was softening of the steel. daveA
>
> --
> Free download of technical exercises worth a lifetime of practice:
> "Dynamic Guitar Technique":http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.html
> You can play the cards you're dealt, or improve your hand with DGT.
> To email go to:http://www.openguitar.com/contact.html

Debunking Nova's pancake collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU&feature=related

Dave like I said, Nist has rejected the the pancake collapse theory
they have been touting for years, this MIT graduate will explain it to
you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&NR=1

And here is another MIT engineer explaining it. There are also many
other independent institution who reject this theory as well. This is
mainly because the "pancake collapse" doesn't include the centrel core
that would have remand standing.

MIT Engineer, Jeff King Debunks Eager's Theory:

Do tall things topple over?

by Jeff King Thursday December 05, 2002 at 01:16 AM

Professor Eagar's statement has been floating around for the past
year, but doesn't really make sense at several levels. He implies that
the laws of gravitation are somehow not linear, that if a small object
of the same proportions (6.5/1 height to base ratio) tends to topple,
a much bigger object of the same proportions will not be similarly
unstable. A wooden box 1' square and 6 1/2' tall has the exact same
geometric relations of center of gravity to base as a big steel box
1300' tall and 208' on a side. Nothing changes with a change in
absolute size, this is the most basic Newtonian physics. Yet Eagar
says "There's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big."
This is complete and utter nonsense.

It also ignores the fact, as noted above by Pete Wagner, that the top
of WTC-2 had clearly "broken off" and begun to tip. A big chunk of
building had begun to topple, and now had linear momentum in the
direction of the lean, as well as angular momentum as it was rotating
about its own center of gravity. Momentum doesn't just go away without
some kind of external force being applied.

Describing one of the the WTC towers as "a building that is mostly
air" sounds profound but is no more valid than saying that atoms are
mostly empty space, and so matter should collapse or implode at any
provocation. It is a clever rhetorical flourish that does a great
injustice to the structural integrity of these buildings, implying
that they were houses of cards waiting to tumble down. In fact they
were very rigid and had far more compressional strength than needed to
avoid collapse. Each core had 47 steel box columns, all interconnected
with steel plates at each floor, and trussed box columns at the
corners that can be seen in the picture above supporting construction
cranes. The outer "tube" comprised 256 14" square steel box columns
tied together with 52" tall steel plates at each floor.

This "tube-in-tube" design, with 110 floors acting as braces that
linked the two tubes together, created an extremely strong geometry
allowing redistribution of stresses. To think that such a structure
would magically disintegrate rather than allow itself to be tipped
over is simply bizarre

David Raleigh Arnold

unread,
Jan 7, 2009, 8:24:12 PM1/7/09
to

Size is critical. All building construction depends on the tensile
strength of a material, whether rivets or beams. The strength is
proportional to the cross section, two dimensions. The weight is
proportional to the volume, three dimensions. It's called the
square-cube law. Double the height of a building and its mass is
octupled, but the support is only quadrupled. Quit paying attention
to scientists who got their degrees in 5 minutes on line. daveA

dewach...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 11:01:37 AM1/8/09
to
> >> >> >> Technique":http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.htmlYoucan play

Right Dave! I should quit listening to MIT educated engineers and
just listen to you! Bush and company are hoping for the same.

Since you are full of answers, explain to me how a 757 full of fuel
crashes in a field in Shanksville and doesn't burn a twig nor blade of
grass, nor produce a fireball?

David Raleigh Arnold

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 12:05:36 PM1/8/09
to

It was no engineer who wrote that crap about size.

and just
> listen to you! Bush and company are hoping for the same.
>
> Since you are full of answers, explain to me how a 757 full of fuel
> crashes in a field in Shanksville and doesn't burn a twig nor blade of
> grass, nor produce a fireball?

I don't know that it *did* happen, but the engines could have been
flamed out for a mile before it hit. Pieces of the plane were scattered
over hundreds of acres, and much of it hasn't even been found yet. What
difference does it make?

dewach...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 1:24:57 PM1/8/09
to
> >> >> Technique":http://www.openguitar.com/instruction.htmlYou can play

The flight data recorder for flight 93 released under the freedom of
information act, shows it hit the ground in one piece. As you
correctly say, the parts were littered over 9 miles, very strange.
Regardless of whether the engines flamed out or not, sparks from metal
would have ignited the nearly full fuel tanks, yet nothing burned, no
fire! Any serious crash site investigator would scratch his head, and
perhaps ask a few questions. Yet in all cases the WTC, Pentagon, and
Shanksville, the govt. say no investigation was needed because they
know what happened.

In the case of flight 11 that hit the Pentagon, it disappeared off
the radar for about a half an hour, and then re appeared heading back
to the Pentagon, yet the Govt. ( new?) it was flight 11, despite the
fact that the air traffic controllers couldn't identify the plane
heading back to Washington, they thought it was a military plane. The
only proof we have that it was flight 11 is the govt. word.

To this day the Govt. has yet to identify the serial numbers of ANY
parts of the planes. It released two Flight data recorders United 93,
and United 11, and no serial number to match theses FDR's with the
actual plane, and has refused to do so even after requests under the
freedom of information act.

What difference does it make? Well if Sherlock Holmes I say to myself
something doesn't quite add up here.

You may make excuses for the Govt. conspiracy tales all day long.
However at best, the Govt. shot down flight 93 ( as Rumsfield said, in
a Freudian slip) and then concocted an elaborate story of heroism,
cell phone calls, "lets roll" etc. as an attempt to manipulate a
patriotic fervor.

Slogoin

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 1:56:37 PM1/8/09
to
On Jan 8, 10:24 am, dewachen1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> What difference does it make?

None with only 1443 days left, according to your other favorite
theory.

dewach...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 2:34:07 PM1/8/09
to

That's not my theory, the Mayans, Hopi, Egyptians, came up with that.
In fact Larry, I'm quite sure that if you were sitting on the top of a
mountain 5000 years ago, the thought that the earth completes a wobble
every 26,000 years, aligns with the galactic center of the galaxy, and
create a calender that to this day is off by one second, would never
have popped into that arithmetical skull of yours, of that I am
confident.

Even today as smart and mathy as you claim to be, you couldn't do the
calculations to save your life, yet you are full of ridicule, and
hubris.

You don't know the difference between Archaeology, and individual
belief, you also have a problem understanding the difference between
evidence, and theory, and let me help you here a little
Sherlock......evidence is not equivalent to a press release, in fact,
it is far from it in most cases.

I've stated before I don't believe the world will end on 2012, but I
do think the study of ancient cultures is fascinating, and I look for
every morsel of wisdom I can find, as knowledge in today's culture is
prized more than wisdom, and Larry's Razor has lost it's edge.

Tashi

Slogoin

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 3:09:46 PM1/8/09
to
On Jan 8, 11:34 am, dewachen1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> That's not my theory, the Mayans, Hopi, Egyptians, came up with that.

You forgot Nostradamus, Merlin, Edgar Casey, Einstein, I Ching, The
Bible Code, Terence McKenna, Shirley MacLaine, Canibus, Smashing
Pumpkins, and many many more...

1442 days left dude! Dat be less den da time since da great
nineleven conspiracy's done been covered up deep by da Gov'ment.

Moondude, you are really out there!

dewach...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 3:46:30 PM1/8/09
to
On Jan 8, 1:09 pm, Slogoin <la...@deack.net> wrote:
> On Jan 8, 11:34 am, dewachen1...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > That's not my theory, the Mayans, Hopi, Egyptians, came up with that.
>
>    You forgot Nostradamus, Merlin, Edgar Casey, Einstein, I Ching, The
> Bible Code, Terence McKenna, Shirley MacLaine, Canibus, Smashing
> Pumpkins, and many many more...

They never occurred to me.


>
>     1442 days left dude! Dat be less den da time since da great
> nineleven conspiracy's done been covered up deep by da Gov'ment.
>
>      Moondude, you are really out there!

Swiftboating won't help you. Larry I'm waiting for those
calculations! Perhaps they are encoded in your alien carvings with
heads tuned to the harmonic convergence, and the sound of the
universe, repesenting the codex of the crystal skulls.

Or here's a simple one........... how does a jet full of fuel crash
and not burn?

Tashi

dewach...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 3:49:42 PM1/8/09
to
On Jan 8, 1:09 pm, Slogoin <la...@deack.net> wrote:

I forgot to mention you should avoid watching the History Channel. I
see all those mentioned in your above post are featured on The History
Channel's Armageddon week. LOL

John LaCroix

unread,
Jan 8, 2009, 10:45:03 PM1/8/09
to

Yeah, the 'Bible Code' one really cracks me up. I would like to get my
hands on the program they use so I can search it (the bible) for URL
recommendations for porn sites...

David Raleigh Arnold

unread,
Jan 9, 2009, 7:04:58 AM1/9/09
to

The *gummint* shot down that plane? Great! That shows someone was almost
competent. Why cover up doing the right thing and saving the Capitol
from destruction? daveA

dewach...@gmail.com

unread,
Jan 9, 2009, 1:13:58 PM1/9/09
to


First off Dave you state the plane was headed for the capitol, how
do you know that? Second, if the govt shot it down, which anyone who
gave the matter any serious attention would conclude, ( and Rumsfield
initially stated) it demonstrates the great lengths they have gone to,
to create false cell phone calls, and a false story, this doesn't
concern you?

The FBI already testified in court Ted Olsen never received a call
from his wife on United 11. The only way (according to the Govt) we
know the alleged hijackers had box cutters, was from Barbra Olsen's
call to Ted Olsen. Ted Olsen On Larry King, could barely recall his
story and contradicted himself, and looked like he couldn't remember
what he was instructed to say.

We were told that the massive fire ball melted steel, and caused the
collapse of two towers in NYC, yet the same kind of jet with fuel
tanks full enough to make it from Boston to the west coast, thus able
to create the same fire ball didn't burn a twig, nor cause a jet fuel
fire, that would have set acres of woods on fire? The State also
tested the ground, and ground water, and found no traces of jet fuel
contaminating the the environment there.

It is a fact, that 3 months before 911 Cheney, and Rumsfield,
changed the hijacking protocol. Before they changed it, the scrambled
fighter pilots had the authority to shoot down any commercial airliner
if they perceived a threat. After Cheney changed it, the authority to
shoot down an airliner was routed through the Pentagon, then Cheney.
This slowed down the response by NORAD quite a bit.

Strangely enough after 911 the hijacking protocol went back to the
pre 911 way of doing things. Go ahead and write this off as just
another of the many strange coincidences that took place that day.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages