Another professor says official 9-11 story is BULLSHIT
laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/39247.htm
Distinguished University of Minnesota Philosophy Professor Joins 9/11
Fight, Saying the Truth Must Be Uncovered
James H.Fetzer, PhD., has publicly thrown his hat in the ring to
support other professors seriously questioning and casting doubt on
the official 9/11 story.
16 December 2005
By Greg Szymanski
A University of Minnesota philosophy professor, like an unexpected
Christmas snowstorm, has dropped a large bundle of holiday cheer on
the 9/11 truth movement, as this week he has thrown his hat into the
ring with others seeking the truth.
“I stand with Steve Jones, professor of physics at BYU and David Ray
Griffin, professor emeritus of Theology at Claremont and other
students and scholars of 9/11, who believe that extraordinary times
require extraordinary measures,” said James H. Fetzer, PhD., a
distinguished McNight University professor at the University of
Minnesota at Duluth.
(snip)))
“One fascinating aspect of 9/11 is that the official story involves
collaboration between some nineteen persons in order to bring about
illegal ends and thus obviously qualifies as a conspiracy theory,”
wrote Fetzer.
“When critics of the government offer an alternative account that
implicates key figures of the government in 9/11, that obviously
qualifies as a ‘conspiracy theory’, too. But what matters now is that
we are confronted by alternative accounts of what happened on 9/11,
both of which qualify as "conspiracy theories". It is therefore no
longer rational to dismiss one of them as a "conspiracy theory" in
favor of the other. The question becomes, which of two ‘conspiracy
theories’ is more defensible?”
(snip)
“Most Americans may not realize that no steel-structure high-rise
building has ever collapsed from fire in the history of civil
engineering, either before or after 9/11,” wrote Fetzer. “If we assume
that those fires have occurred in a wide variety of buildings under a
broad range of conditions, that evidence suggests that these buildings
do not have a propensity to collapsed as an effect of fire. That
makes an alternative explanation, especially the use of powerful
explosives in a controlled demolition, a hypothesis that must be taken
seriously.”
Vandar
>
> http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/39247.htm
>
> Distinguished University of Minnesota Philosophy Professor Joins 9/11
> Fight, Saying the Truth Must Be Uncovered
>
> James H.Fetzer, PhD., has publicly thrown his hat in the ring to
> support other professors seriously questioning and casting doubt on
> the official 9/11 story.
> 16 December 2005
>
> By Greg Szymanski
What a surprise.
> A University of Minnesota philosophy professor
Yeah, philosophy
http://www.assassinationscience.com/
John P
> "Most Americans may not realize that no steel-structure high-rise
> building has ever collapsed from fire in the history of civil
> engineering, either before or after 9/11," wrote Fetzer. "If we assume
> that those fires have occurred in a wide variety of buildings under a
> broad range of conditions, that evidence suggests that these buildings
> do not have a propensity to collapsed as an effect of fire. That
> makes an alternative explanation, especially the use of powerful
> explosives in a controlled demolition, a hypothesis that must be taken
> seriously."
Most Americans may not realize that every building that has had a large
passenger jet drive directly into it, taking out a large portion of the
structure and exploding in a huge fireball, *has* collapsed. Two of them as
a matter of fact.
Bo Raxo
"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pv8cq1d772fabthpt...@4ax.com...
>
>
> http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/39247.htm
>
> Distinguished University of Minnesota Philosophy Professor Joins 9/11
> Fight, Saying the Truth Must Be Uncovered
>
Because when I have a question about international terrorism and the physics
involved when jet fuels softens steel and a building collapses, I turn to a
professor of philosophy. Turn to him, and say, "Shut the fuck up."
Bo Raxo
gerry
Mitchell bomber. And when was the last time you heard of a high rise
like 2WTC having all its power cut off for the top half of the building
(from the 48th floor up) for electrical work, as happened on 9/8/01 and
9/9/01? By the way, at 2WTC, the building did not explode in a huge
fireball, the jet did, and I was an eyewitness to that explosion.
Bo Raxo
"gerry" <gerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134967364.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The Empire State Building did not collapse under the impact of a
> Mitchell bomber.
Different fuel, and in smaller quantity.
> And when was the last time you heard of a high rise
> like 2WTC having all its power cut off for the top half of the building
> (from the 48th floor up) for electrical work, as happened on 9/8/01 and
> 9/9/01?
Gee, do such things make the news? BTW, got a cite for this? And I don't
mean from some circle-jerk conspiracy site, but from something reputable?
> By the way, at 2WTC, the building did not explode in a huge
> fireball, the jet did, and I was an eyewitness to that explosion.
>
Nobody said the building exploded; it collapsed. Knock out a number of
structural supports, heat the remaining steel enough to have it lose a
significant percentage of its structural strength, and a horizontal slice
collapses. The portion of the building above it slams directly downward,
collapsing the structural support of a section directly below it, and the
process continues as it pancakes straight downward.
If this isn't how it worked, with tens of thousands of civil engineers in
this country, do you think nobody would figure it out? Note I said actual
civil engineers, not people (including you and me) who aren't experts in
this field.
This country couldn't keep a presidential blowjob secret, and we're supposed
to believe they could keep a conspiracy that would require hundreds of
participants and murdered thousands of people from becoming public.
Laughable.
Bo Raxo
(damn, I'm responding to these whack jobs, but there's nothing on tv...)
The U.S. Constitution
news:s0rpf.42$R84...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> Nobody said the building exploded; it collapsed. Knock out a number of
> structural supports, heat the remaining steel enough to have it lose a
> significant percentage of its structural strength, and a horizontal slice
> collapses. The portion of the building above it slams directly downward,
> collapsing the structural support of a section directly below it, and the
> process continues as it pancakes straight downward.
Now apply this to WTC 7, and your entire story falls apart.
--
I'm just a goddamned piece of paper.
http://beosnews.com/
http://www.bedoper.com
http://www.cafepress.com/angeldevil
Bo Raxo
"The U.S. Constitution" <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9730EAFE...@207.14.113.17...
> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in
> news:s0rpf.42$R84...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > Nobody said the building exploded; it collapsed. Knock out a number of
> > structural supports, heat the remaining steel enough to have it lose a
> > significant percentage of its structural strength, and a horizontal
slice
> > collapses. The portion of the building above it slams directly
downward,
> > collapsing the structural support of a section directly below it, and
the
> > process continues as it pancakes straight downward.
>
> Now apply this to WTC 7, and your entire story falls apart.
>
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
[...]
Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said
there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the
benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working
hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the
FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there
was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's
Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the
bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the
building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented
damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe
structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact
proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of
WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the
failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the
entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or
"kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared
into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on
itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west
side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure:
In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying
exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each
floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just
one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a
vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation:
First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer
loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face
apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to
columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing
capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no
firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed
by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators.
Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the
fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized
line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized
line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that
burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's
unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
John P
> The Empire State Building did not collapse under the impact of a
> Mitchell bomber.
A much smaller aircraft and the Empire State Building is very different from
WTC I & II architechturally.
> And when was the last time you heard of a high rise like 2WTC having
> all its power cut off for the top half of the building (from the 48th
> floor up)
> for electrical work, as happened on 9/8/01 and 9/9/01?
Never. No one reports electrical work in high rise buildings to me and it
doesn't seem a newsworthy event. However, when my aunt worked in the Sears
Tower several years ago, I recall her talking about having to take the
stairs down 72 floors because the power in the building was out on at least
a couple of occasions.
> By the way, at 2WTC, the building did not explode in a huge
> fireball, the jet did, and I was an eyewitness to that explosion.
That is correct. The building wouldn't have exploded since it did not
contain explosive materials. It was clearly the jet that exploded. I'm not
sure why you bother to point this out.
The jet went into the building and exploded, but you can be sure the force
of the explosion effected more than just the jet as the jet was at least
partway into the building when it exploded.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Building 7.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
And what makes that drunken moron in the WH an expert on physics?
Bo Raxo
"Laura Bush murdered her boy friend" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134970665.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And who said he was? Quite the opposite: the man has a remarkable ability to
fail and fall upward.
See:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y
for some actual experts.
John P
>> Most Americans may not realize that every building that has had a large
>> passenger jet drive directly into it, taking out a large portion of the
>> structure and exploding in a huge fireball, *has* collapsed. Two of them
>> as
>> a matter of fact.
> Building 7.
Al-Qaeda admits 9/11 attacks
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/10/36235.html
http://purportal.com/special/9-11/
http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/
http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_1253.shtml
The truth is out there.
Alan Hope
Still doesn't explain WTC 7.
--
AH
John P
>>Most Americans may not realize that every building that has had a large
>>passenger jet drive directly into it, taking out a large portion of the
>>structure and exploding in a huge fireball, *has* collapsed. Two of them
>>as
>>a matter of fact.
> Still doesn't explain WTC 7.
I would be more suspicious if 2 buildings the size of WTC I & II collapsed
and *didn't* take out any of the buildings nearby.
What's next - the "A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, a missile did" theory?
Phil Miller
>The Empire State Building did not collapse under the impact of a
>Mitchell bomber.
And a B-25 weighs, in the order of, 33,000lbs, in this case was flying
slow and just about out of fuel as it was trying to land after a long
flight. Compared to a 199,000lb 767 that had been fuelled for a trans
continental flight and was flying at several hundred miles an hour.
A B-25 normally carried 974 US gallons of fuel when fully loaded.
http://www.b25.net/
A 767 carries 23,980 U.S. gal for the ER versions.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/technical.html
Want to take a guess why a B-25 didn't bring down the Empire State
building?
Phil
--
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
'cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.
Monty Python's "Galaxy Song"
Bo Raxo
"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:d5ncq1h07q34skn8k...@4ax.com...
Falling debris carved out about 25% of the structure across a span of ten
floors of the building. That's a third of the building's height. Fires
burned without any attempt to stop them for seven hours. A large diesel
tank in the basement had a high pressure line that ran to the fifth floor,
which experts think probably fed that fire for quite some time.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:d5ncq1h07q34skn8k...@4ax.com...
>> John P goes:
>> >"I escaped from a Mental Hospital" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in a
>message
>> >> "Most Americans may not realize that no steel-structure high-rise
>> >> building has ever collapsed from fire in the history of civil
>> >> engineering, either before or after 9/11," wrote Fetzer. "If we assume
>> >> that those fires have occurred in a wide variety of buildings under a
>> >> broad range of conditions, that evidence suggests that these buildings
>> >> do not have a propensity to collapsed as an effect of fire. That
>> >> makes an alternative explanation, especially the use of powerful
>> >> explosives in a controlled demolition, a hypothesis that must be taken
>> >> seriously."
>> >Most Americans may not realize that every building that has had a large
>> >passenger jet drive directly into it, taking out a large portion of the
>> >structure and exploding in a huge fireball, *has* collapsed. Two of them
>as
>> >a matter of fact.
>> Still doesn't explain WTC 7.
>Falling debris carved out about 25% of the structure across a span of ten
>floors of the building. That's a third of the building's height.
I've seen the pictures. Have you? Can you see any evidence of that?
>Fires
>burned without any attempt to stop them for seven hours. A large diesel
>tank in the basement had a high pressure line that ran to the fifth floor,
>which experts think probably fed that fire for quite some time.
The fires were trivial, and yet the building came down in precisely
the same fashion as the two towers which had been slammed by jet
airliners. How odd. Only three such buildings have ever come down by
accident, and they all happened on the same day, but due to two
different causes.
>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
>"WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire
>that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's
>unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse."
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe
impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was
younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've
believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
-- from Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" wrote in a message
>>>Most Americans may not realize that every building that has had a large
>>>passenger jet drive directly into it, taking out a large portion of the
>>>structure and exploding in a huge fireball, *has* collapsed. Two of them
>>>as
>>>a matter of fact.
>> Still doesn't explain WTC 7.
>I would be more suspicious if 2 buildings the size of WTC I & II collapsed
>and *didn't* take out any of the buildings nearby.
Am I not correct in thinking that never before had a steel-structured
high-rise building come down as a result of fire before 9-11 (or
since) but on 9-11 itself three came down in the same way for two
different reasons? What are the odds of that?
Am I not correct in thinking that WTC 6, which is closer to 1 and 2
than WTC 7 is, was not brought down? So they brought down one building
nearby, but not the building nearest-by?
You're going to prove to be one of those people who believes anything
he's told by the government, aren't you?
>What's next - the "A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, a missile did" theory?
>
--
AH
dr...@mail.com
failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause
the
yank sub standard workpersons not doing their work correctly any way
who gives a fuuk !
Bo Raxo
The NIHT did, and so did 7 structural engineers hired by Popular Mechanics
for the article I cited.
> >Fires
> >burned without any attempt to stop them for seven hours. A large diesel
> >tank in the basement had a high pressure line that ran to the fifth
floor,
> >which experts think probably fed that fire for quite some time.
>
> The fires were trivial, and yet the building came down in precisely
> the same fashion as the two towers which had been slammed by jet
> airliners. How odd. Only three such buildings have ever come down by
> accident, and they all happened on the same day, but due to two
> different causes.
>
> >http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
>
> >"WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire
> >that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the
building's
> >unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction
collapse."
>
> "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe
> impossible things."
> "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was
> younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've
> believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
>
> -- from Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll.
>
A wonderful comment on conspiracy theories.
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
> John P goes:
>
> >"Alan Hope" wrote in a message
>
> >>>Most Americans may not realize that every building that has had a large
> >>>passenger jet drive directly into it, taking out a large portion of the
> >>>structure and exploding in a huge fireball, *has* collapsed. Two of
them
> >>>as
> >>>a matter of fact.
>
> >> Still doesn't explain WTC 7.
>
> >I would be more suspicious if 2 buildings the size of WTC I & II
collapsed
> >and *didn't* take out any of the buildings nearby.
>
> Am I not correct in thinking that never before had a steel-structured
> high-rise building come down as a result of fire before 9-11 (or
> since) but on 9-11 itself three came down in the same way for two
> different reasons? What are the odds of that?
>
How many building have had commercial jets with a full load of fuel slam in
to them?
> Am I not correct in thinking that WTC 6, which is closer to 1 and 2
> than WTC 7 is, was not brought down? So they brought down one building
> nearby, but not the building nearest-by?
>
> You're going to prove to be one of those people who believes anything
> he's told by the government, aren't you?
>
No, I believe what all of the independant experts say, after they've had a
few years to study the evidence.
Are you going to be one of those people who believes nothing the government
says? Is that any smarter?
Bo Raxo
John P
>>I would be more suspicious if 2 buildings the size of WTC I & II collapsed
>>and *didn't* take out any of the buildings nearby.
> Am I not correct in thinking that never before had a steel-structured
> high-rise building come down as a result of fire before 9-11 (or
> since) but on 9-11 itself three came down in the same way for two
> different reasons? What are the odds of that?
You would also be correct to say that 4 passenger jets have never been
hijacked and crashed in the same day. A rather odd day all around, wouldn't
you say.
OK... so, if you think WTC 7 didn't come down due to proximity, what is your
theory?
> Am I not correct in thinking that WTC 6, which is closer to 1 and 2
> than WTC 7 is, was not brought down? So they brought down one building
> nearby, but not the building nearest-by?
Have you ever seen an automobile accident? Some very strange things happen.
Try looking at a vehicle afterwards and figure out how the heck they managed
to do that. ... or you see a car crushed under a semi and you're convinced
there is no way anyone in that car survived - but somehow they all do. A
race car driver crashes, flips, rolls, the car catches on fire and breaks
into little pieces - the driver steps out of the cage unhurt except for
minor cuts and bruises. Another driver smacks into the wall, it doesn't look
like any big deal - but he dies.
I need a little more than "Gee, that's kind of weird" to think there
something more going on.
> You're going to prove to be one of those people who believes anything
> he's told by the government, aren't you?
Nope. ... but you also won't find me an easy pushover for any wild theories
that have no logical motive and/or have been disproven by at least a few
sources. I haven't, to date, seen any 9/11 conspiracy theories that have
stood up to independent scrutiny.
... but I am wide open to anything you have to present and will give it a
fair shake.
Andrew Nichols
Everyone knows 9/11 was committed by the Globalists, for the
Globalists, regardless of if they remoted controlled planes into the
buildings, or used explosives. We still dont know why Building 7
fell, but none of the other buildings in the area did not fall. We do
know Exxon Mobile just made like a 9.3 billion dollars profit their
last quarter. A Haliburton Truck Driver, who drives oil, just for 1
week makes $8,000.00.
Yes, we have lost our Country, never to regain it, while America was
watching Donald Trump.
Andrew
禦含諿共n?
<xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/39247.htm
>
>Distinguished University of Minnesota Philosophy Professor Joins 9/11
>Fight, Saying the Truth Must Be Uncovered
LOL Ooohhh! A PROFESSOR, you say! How impressive!
Intelligent Designer is God, Professor Says
Professor says living to 100 is possible with healthy lifestyle ...
Professor Says Al-Zarqawi In Iraq Is a Myth
Professor Says Lack Of Holiday Spirit May Indicate Societal Decline
Professor says "We could destroy all European capitals".
Professor Says Humans More Likely To Spread Disease Than Insects ...
Professor Says Birds Can Plan and Learn
Professor Says Noisy Oceans Could Damage Fish Hearing
Professor says soldiers should kill officers
Professors say lots of shit. It's their job to profess, after all.
Morton Davis
"Andrew Nichols" <ape...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:rbfdq1l8b1u6gqtt0...@4ax.com...
gerry
that the two towers were built using a truss construction techniques.
Engineers have a phrase, "don't trust the truss," to show their opinion
of this technique. But truss construction is fast, and at the WTC,
kangaroo jacks on the corners, floors could be built and jacked up one
story at a time. Having said that, how do you explain 2WTC collapsing
before 1WTC? As to the inability of anyone to keep secrets nowadays,
how would you know if some secrets aren't secure? The speed of the WTC
collapse is the issue, and that collapse occurred faster than anyone
thought, including professional firefighters on the scene.
The scientific method requires you propose a hypothese, test that
hypothese against the available data and reach a conclusion. You have
eliminated steps one and two and gone directly to step three. As to
your comment about different fuel in the Mitchell bomber, the WW2
airplane fuels had lead additives to boost octane ratings, but their
thermal energy content was not that different from jet propellants used
nowadays. Maybe you should go back to watching television
monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar
The guy that sent this document to al jazeera was the neighbor of the
friend of the uncle of a taxi driver a close friend of my brother once
saw... Get real.
> http://purportal.com/special/9-11/
Huh ?
> http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/
Where does it prove al qaeda did it ? What's al qaeda ?
Rest snipped, no need to continue
>The truth is out there.
Sure it is.
monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar
>> And when was the last time you heard of a high rise
>> like 2WTC having all its power cut off for the top half of the building
>> (from the 48th floor up) for electrical work, as happened on 9/8/01 and
>> 9/9/01?
>Gee, do such things make the news? BTW, got a cite for this? And I don't
>mean from some circle-jerk conspiracy site, but from something reputable?
Try this http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html
Try "google" also.
>> Now apply this to WTC 7, and your entire story falls apart.
>http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
Gee, so NIST knows now more than FEMA did. How do you think they
"discovered" that they "knew" what they told you in their article ? I
guess they saw some footage or photos of the damaged WTC7 ? If yes then
please share it with the rest.
monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar
>> Still doesn't explain WTC 7.
>I would be more suspicious if 2 buildings the size of WTC I & II collapsed
>and *didn't* take out any of the buildings nearby.
Well closer building to WTC did not fall. They were burning too.
>What's next - the "A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, a missile did" theory?
No, but a "Flight 77 pilot, Charles Burlingame, had drafted a
Pentagone's emergency plan in case it was hit by a commercial
airliner". Or "Flight 77 hit the only part of the Pentagone that was
nearly empty and being renovated to reinforce its structure and counter
terrorist explosions".
You'd say these are coincidences, right ?
Sky King
You haven't been able to support your paranoid assertions, monnoidiot. How
long shall we wait?
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Andrew Nichols wrote:
>
> Everyone knows 9/11 was committed by the Globalists, for the
> Globalists, regardless of if they remoted controlled planes into the
> buildings, or used explosives. We still dont know why Building 7
I pretty much agree. It wasn't bush, it was the people who control
bush and in fact run the world. That's why bush just sat in that school
for a half hour doing nothing on 9-11. That may have been a signal to
the country, in effect saying "i'm not part of this".
Airto Moreíra
What about it, you drunken cunt?
That is and was so easily explained many times as why it's stucture fell.
SaPeIsMa
Too bad that they INDEED are "impossible things" to the ignorant
You're a case in point.
R Sweeney
"laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pv8cq1d772fabthpt...@4ax.com...
>
>
> http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/39247.htm
>
> Distinguished University of Minnesota Philosophy Professor Joins 9/11
> Fight, Saying the Truth Must Be Uncovered
>
> support other professors seriously questioning and casting doubt on
> the official 9/11 story.
> 16 December 2005
>
> By Greg Szymanski
>
> A University of Minnesota philosophy professor, like an unexpected
...
> "Most Americans may not realize that no steel-structure high-rise
> building has ever collapsed from fire in the history of civil
> engineering, either before or after 9/11," wrote Fetzer.
Yep, I always go to philosophy professors when I need a structural failure
analysis.
SaPeIsMa
<monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote in message
news:1135006268.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Bon, maintenant nous voila avec un fan de bandes dessines..
But to address the main issue.
It doens't take much inteligence to cook up some stupid conspiracy
It takes even less to believe it.
But it does take some minimal intelligence to appreciate when a conspiracy
theory is, as they say on Texas, "All hat and NO cattle."
So, where exactly do you fall in the above range of intelligence, chose ?
PLMerite
>
> Andrew Nichols wrote:
>>
>> Everyone knows 9/11 was committed by the Globalists, for the
>> Globalists, regardless of if they remoted controlled planes into the
>> buildings, or used explosives. We still dont know why Building 7
>> fell, but the other buildings in the area did not fall.
>
> I pretty much agree. It wasn't bush, it was the people who control
> bush and in fact run the world.
And yet somehow they haven't found and silenced you.
More's the pity.
Regards, PLMerite
PLMerite
"gerry" <gerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134967364.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> The Empire State Building did not collapse under the impact of a
> like 2WTC having all its power cut off for the top half of the building
> (from the 48th floor up) for electrical work, as happened on 9/8/01 and
> fireball, the jet did, and I was an eyewitness to that explosion.
The power outages where when Da Jooz (tm) snuck in and planted the cutting
charges, right?
Regards, PLMerite
--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
John P
> John P wrote:
>> Al-Qaeda admits 9/11 attacks
>> http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/10/36235.html
> The guy that sent this document to al jazeera was the neighbor of the
> friend of the uncle of a taxi driver a close friend of my brother once
> saw... Get real.
...and all the references Osama Bin Laden made to 9/11?
> Rest snipped, no need to continue
Unless you're interested in facts.
John P
>>What's next - the "A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, a missile did" theory?
> No, but a "Flight 77 pilot, Charles Burlingame, had drafted a
> Pentagone's emergency plan in case it was hit by a commercial
> airliner". Or "Flight 77 hit the only part of the Pentagone that was
> nearly empty and being renovated to reinforce its structure and counter
> terrorist explosions".
Got a link or cite for the above? I'd be interested in reading it.
> You'd say these are coincidences, right ?
I'd say the whole thing was well planned and carried out by Al Qaeda.
Vandar
> John P goes:
>
>
>>"Alan Hope" wrote in a message
>
>
>>>>Most Americans may not realize that every building that has had a large
>>>>passenger jet drive directly into it, taking out a large portion of the
>>>>structure and exploding in a huge fireball, *has* collapsed. Two of them
>>>>as
>>>>a matter of fact.
>
>
>>>Still doesn't explain WTC 7.
>
>
>>I would be more suspicious if 2 buildings the size of WTC I & II collapsed
>>and *didn't* take out any of the buildings nearby.
>
>
> Am I not correct in thinking that never before had a steel-structured
> high-rise building come down as a result of fire before 9-11 (or
> since) but on 9-11 itself three came down in the same way for two
> different reasons? What are the odds of that?
Considering 9/11 was an unique event in history, 100%.
> Am I not correct in thinking that WTC 6, which is closer to 1 and 2
> than WTC 7 is, was not brought down? So they brought down one building
> nearby, but not the building nearest-by?
WTC 6 was destroyed in the collapse of the towers, as was 3, 4, and 5.
Vandar
http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg
>>Fires
>>burned without any attempt to stop them for seven hours. A large diesel
>>tank in the basement had a high pressure line that ran to the fifth floor,
>>which experts think probably fed that fire for quite some time.
>
>
> The fires were trivial, and yet the building came down in precisely
> the same fashion as the two towers which had been slammed by jet
> airliners.
No it didn't.
> How odd. Only three such buildings have ever come down by
> accident, and they all happened on the same day, but due to two
> different causes.
You really believe that no other buildings in history have ever
collapsed "by accident"?
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" <not.al...@mail.com> wrote in message
>news:7btcq1d69qg7q4hhj...@4ax.com...
>> John P goes:
>> >"Alan Hope" wrote in a message
>> >>>Most Americans may not realize that every building that has had a large
>> >>>passenger jet drive directly into it, taking out a large portion of the
>> >>>structure and exploding in a huge fireball, *has* collapsed. Two of
>them
>> >>>as
>> >>>a matter of fact.
>> >> Still doesn't explain WTC 7.
>> >I would be more suspicious if 2 buildings the size of WTC I & II
>collapsed
>> >and *didn't* take out any of the buildings nearby.
>> Am I not correct in thinking that never before had a steel-structured
>> high-rise building come down as a result of fire before 9-11 (or
>> since) but on 9-11 itself three came down in the same way for two
>> different reasons? What are the odds of that?
>How many building have had commercial jets with a full load of fuel slam in
>to them?
That's only one reason.
>> Am I not correct in thinking that WTC 6, which is closer to 1 and 2
>> than WTC 7 is, was not brought down? So they brought down one building
>> nearby, but not the building nearest-by?
>> You're going to prove to be one of those people who believes anything
>> he's told by the government, aren't you?
>No, I believe what all of the independant experts say, after they've had a
>few years to study the evidence.
The evidence was carted away and destroyed, Bo.
>Are you going to be one of those people who believes nothing the government
>says? Is that any smarter?
Well, of course it is. Especially the current lot. Don't you have
enough evidence yet that they're lying liars?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" wrote in a message
>>>I would be more suspicious if 2 buildings the size of WTC I & II collapsed
>>>and *didn't* take out any of the buildings nearby.
>> Am I not correct in thinking that never before had a steel-structured
>> high-rise building come down as a result of fire before 9-11 (or
>> since) but on 9-11 itself three came down in the same way for two
>> different reasons? What are the odds of that?
>You would also be correct to say that 4 passenger jets have never been
>hijacked and crashed in the same day. A rather odd day all around, wouldn't
>you say.
There's nothing odd about that at all.
>OK... so, if you think WTC 7 didn't come down due to proximity, what is your
>theory?
I have no theory, only deep skepticism.
>> Am I not correct in thinking that WTC 6, which is closer to 1 and 2
>> than WTC 7 is, was not brought down? So they brought down one building
>> nearby, but not the building nearest-by?
>Have you ever seen an automobile accident? Some very strange things happen.
>Try looking at a vehicle afterwards and figure out how the heck they managed
>to do that. ... or you see a car crushed under a semi and you're convinced
>there is no way anyone in that car survived - but somehow they all do. A
>race car driver crashes, flips, rolls, the car catches on fire and breaks
>into little pieces - the driver steps out of the cage unhurt except for
>minor cuts and bruises. Another driver smacks into the wall, it doesn't look
>like any big deal - but he dies.
>I need a little more than "Gee, that's kind of weird" to think there
>something more going on.
Right, fine, you don't want to have to think about awkward questions.
You'd rather bury your head in the sand. Have it your way.
>> You're going to prove to be one of those people who believes anything
>> he's told by the government, aren't you?
>Nope. ... but you also won't find me an easy pushover for any wild theories
>that have no logical motive and/or have been disproven by at least a few
>sources. I haven't, to date, seen any 9/11 conspiracy theories that have
>stood up to independent scrutiny.
Including the biggest conspiracy theory of them all? The official
version? Or do you consider that logical?
>... but I am wide open to anything you have to present and will give it a
>fair shake.
I rather doubt that.
--
AH
Alan Hope
The only evidence they saw was pictures and video. The actual evidence
-- the whole of Ground Zero was of course a crime scene -- was carted
off and destroyed with unprecedented haste. But that'll just be a
coincidence, I'm sure. Another one.
>> >Fires
>> >burned without any attempt to stop them for seven hours. A large diesel
>> >tank in the basement had a high pressure line that ran to the fifth
>floor,
>> >which experts think probably fed that fire for quite some time.
>> The fires were trivial, and yet the building came down in precisely
>> the same fashion as the two towers which had been slammed by jet
>> airliners. How odd. Only three such buildings have ever come down by
>> accident, and they all happened on the same day, but due to two
>> different causes.
>> >http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
>> >"WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire
>> >that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the
>building's
>> >unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction
>collapse."
>> "Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe
>> impossible things."
>> "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was
>> younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've
>> believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
>> -- from Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll.
>A wonderful comment on conspiracy theories.
The official version is the Daddy of all conspiracy theories. With
passports fluttering to earth from a raging inferno, flight manuals
left in parked cars, John O'Neill turning up for his first day in a
new job, and many more impossible things.
--
AH
gerry
its data mining methods identify Mohammed Atta and others as potential
terrorists, the reaction from higher ups is sweep the matter under the
rug. A jet training pilot in Minnesota reports suspicious behavior by
one of his students, nothing. One year before 9/11, passengers on a
Boston to L.A. jet report suspicious behavior by passengers to the FBI
(one passenger was actor James Woods, who in an interview said he
thought the passengers in question were casing the jet for future
action) and there is zero follow-up. The attitude that by ignoring
signs of a problem, the problem will go away, does not always work out
in real life. By the way, do you know the reason for the rush in
recycling the WTC steel, destroying potential crime scene evidence?
John P
>>> Am I not correct in thinking that never before had a steel-structured
>>> high-rise building come down as a result of fire before 9-11 (or
>>> since) but on 9-11 itself three came down in the same way for two
>>> different reasons? What are the odds of that?
>>You would also be correct to say that 4 passenger jets have never been
>>hijacked and crashed in the same day. A rather odd day all around,
>>wouldn't
>>you say.
> There's nothing odd about that at all.
Really? Can you name another time when 4 passenger jets were hijacked in the
same day, much less deliberately crashed? Much less deliberately crashed
into buildings?
>>OK... so, if you think WTC 7 didn't come down due to proximity, what is
>>your
>>theory?
> I have no theory, only deep skepticism.
Why?
>>I need a little more than "Gee, that's kind of weird" to think there
>>something more going on.
> Right, fine, you don't want to have to think about awkward questions.
> You'd rather bury your head in the sand. Have it your way.
No sir. I've read the conspiracy theories and I've read the debunking of
those theories. As anyone does, I weigh what I read and digest it within the
realm of my experiences, education and knowledge. I have pretty much no
knowledge or experience with planes, plane crashes, engineering or building
collapses. Never the less, I had to read all of it and decide in my own mind
which seemed more credible. In that case, I felt the stories about how the
jets crashed (which I also saw repeatedly on film) and how the buildings
came down were pretty cut and dried once all the data was in. I saw nothing
suspicious there. The conspiracy sites seemed to raise some good questions
initially, but the debunking sites and articles easily proved to me that
such questions had no merit.
One thing I *did* find odd, that I noticed almost immediately, was how
quickly "they" knew who all the hijackers were. It was obvious to me that
one or more law enforcement or government agencies were already aware of who
these people were, what their potential was, and possibly had some specific
ideas of what they planned.
Those suspicions were confirmed and it was found that our intelligence
agencies completely blew it.
>>Nope. ... but you also won't find me an easy pushover for any wild
>>theories
>>that have no logical motive and/or have been disproven by at least a few
>>sources. I haven't, to date, seen any 9/11 conspiracy theories that have
>>stood up to independent scrutiny.
> Including the biggest conspiracy theory of them all? The official
> version? Or do you consider that logical?
That the official story has been supported over and over by independent
sources, I have no reason to feel otherwise.
>>... but I am wide open to anything you have to present and will give it a
>>fair shake.
> I rather doubt that.
I can't help you there.
Andrew Nichols
I'm on the fringe: I dont even think there were any hijackers, but
only remote control tech.
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" wrote in a message
>>>> Am I not correct in thinking that never before had a steel-structured
>>>> high-rise building come down as a result of fire before 9-11 (or
>>>> since) but on 9-11 itself three came down in the same way for two
>>>> different reasons? What are the odds of that?
>>>You would also be correct to say that 4 passenger jets have never been
>>>hijacked and crashed in the same day. A rather odd day all around,
>>>wouldn't
>>>you say.
>> There's nothing odd about that at all.
>Really? Can you name another time when 4 passenger jets were hijacked in the
>same day, much less deliberately crashed? Much less deliberately crashed
>into buildings?
It's not at all common, but that doesn't make it odd. Since the
hijacking of one aircraft has happened on numerous occasions, it's
only a very small skip and a jump to having the same thing happen four
times in one day.
Not at all the same thing as two buildings falling in an unprecedented
way, and another falling in a different unprecedented way.
The word "unprecedented" in there is a large component of the
difference.
>>>OK... so, if you think WTC 7 didn't come down due to proximity, what is
>>>your
>>>theory?
>> I have no theory, only deep skepticism.
>Why?
Too many impossible things to be asked to believe in the whole
scenario of that day's events. It just so happens the intercepts are
too far away; it just so happens there's an exercise going on; it just
so happens two buildings hit by planes collapse in *precisely* the
same way as another that wasn't; it just so happens no other buildings
collapse in any other way; and so on.
>>>I need a little more than "Gee, that's kind of weird" to think there
>>>something more going on.
>> Right, fine, you don't want to have to think about awkward questions.
>> You'd rather bury your head in the sand. Have it your way.
>No sir. I've read the conspiracy theories and I've read the debunking of
>those theories. As anyone does, I weigh what I read and digest it within the
>realm of my experiences, education and knowledge. I have pretty much no
>knowledge or experience with planes, plane crashes, engineering or building
>collapses. Never the less, I had to read all of it and decide in my own mind
>which seemed more credible. In that case, I felt the stories about how the
>jets crashed (which I also saw repeatedly on film) and how the buildings
>came down were pretty cut and dried once all the data was in.
All the data was in? What about the data that was loaded up and taken
away, in the crime-scene wreckage? All the data you're talking about
is video footage and its interpretation by this or that expert.
>I saw nothing
>suspicious there. The conspiracy sites seemed to raise some good questions
>initially, but the debunking sites and articles easily proved to me that
>such questions had no merit.
You must enlighten me, then, because all the debunk attempts I've ever
seen have done a pisspoor job at even addressing the main questions,
let alone sweeping them away. What they tend to do, in my experience,
is exactly what you've been doing: label it all "conspiracy theory"
and that's the job done.
>One thing I *did* find odd, that I noticed almost immediately, was how
>quickly "they" knew who all the hijackers were. It was obvious to me that
>one or more law enforcement or government agencies were already aware of who
>these people were, what their potential was, and possibly had some specific
>ideas of what they planned.
>Those suspicions were confirmed and it was found that our intelligence
>agencies completely blew it.
Some of the detail, like the floating fireproof passport, were a
little Baroque in their exaggeration.
>>>Nope. ... but you also won't find me an easy pushover for any wild
>>>theories
>>>that have no logical motive and/or have been disproven by at least a few
>>>sources. I haven't, to date, seen any 9/11 conspiracy theories that have
>>>stood up to independent scrutiny.
>> Including the biggest conspiracy theory of them all? The official
>> version? Or do you consider that logical?
>That the official story has been supported over and over by independent
>sources, I have no reason to feel otherwise.
Such as? Independent sources? How do you determine that? Is that like
independent media outlets paid for by the Pentagon in Iraq?
Independent columnists paid for by the White House in the US? Fair and
balanced Fox News?
I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of sense can trust any of the
bastards. Including the independent bastards.
>>>... but I am wide open to anything you have to present and will give it a
>>>fair shake.
>> I rather doubt that.
>I can't help you there.
You have the deep resonating sound of a man who's made up his mind,
and is content to have chosen so wisely.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>Alan Hope wrote:
>> John P goes:
>>>"Alan Hope" wrote in a message
>>>>>Most Americans may not realize that every building that has had a large
>>>>>passenger jet drive directly into it, taking out a large portion of the
>>>>>structure and exploding in a huge fireball, *has* collapsed. Two of them
>>>>>as
>>>>>a matter of fact.
>>>>Still doesn't explain WTC 7.
>>>I would be more suspicious if 2 buildings the size of WTC I & II collapsed
>>>and *didn't* take out any of the buildings nearby.
>> Am I not correct in thinking that never before had a steel-structured
>> high-rise building come down as a result of fire before 9-11 (or
>> since) but on 9-11 itself three came down in the same way for two
>> different reasons? What are the odds of that?
>Considering 9/11 was an unique event in history, 100%.
Well, no. That's not quite how it works.
>> Am I not correct in thinking that WTC 6, which is closer to 1 and 2
>> than WTC 7 is, was not brought down? So they brought down one building
>> nearby, but not the building nearest-by?
>WTC 6 was destroyed in the collapse of the towers, as was 3, 4, and 5.
No, sir, it was not. It was demolished later. In the interim, some
very odd photographs were taken which show the most unusual crater in
the middle of the building, punching right through to, or indeed from,
ground level.
>> You're going to prove to be one of those people who believes anything
>> he's told by the government, aren't you?
>>>What's next - the "A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, a missile did" theory?
--
AH
Alan Hope
>You really believe that no other buildings in history have ever
>collapsed "by accident"?
Buildings of that type.
--
AH
PLMerite
Lots of voices in your head, aren't there?
Vandar
> Vandar goes:
>
>
>>Alan Hope wrote:
>>
>>>John P goes:
>>>
>>>>"Alan Hope" wrote in a message
>
>
>
>>>>>>Most Americans may not realize that every building that has had a large
>>>>>>passenger jet drive directly into it, taking out a large portion of the
>>>>>>structure and exploding in a huge fireball, *has* collapsed. Two of them
>>>>>>as
>>>>>>a matter of fact.
>
>
>
>>>>>Still doesn't explain WTC 7.
>
>
>
>>>>I would be more suspicious if 2 buildings the size of WTC I & II collapsed
>>>>and *didn't* take out any of the buildings nearby.
>
>
>
>>>Am I not correct in thinking that never before had a steel-structured
>>>high-rise building come down as a result of fire before 9-11 (or
>>>since) but on 9-11 itself three came down in the same way for two
>>>different reasons? What are the odds of that?
>
>
>>Considering 9/11 was an unique event in history, 100%.
>
>
> Well, no. That's not quite how it works.
That's how it happened.
Using history as a gauge, there is a 100% chance for the buildings to
collapse exactly as they did on 9/11.
>>>Am I not correct in thinking that WTC 6, which is closer to 1 and 2
>>>than WTC 7 is, was not brought down? So they brought down one building
>>>nearby, but not the building nearest-by?
>
>
>>WTC 6 was destroyed in the collapse of the towers, as was 3, 4, and 5.
>
>
> No, sir, it was not. It was demolished later.
What was left was demolished later. It was destroyed in the collapse.
> In the interim, some
> very odd photographs were taken which show the most unusual crater in
> the middle of the building, punching right through to, or indeed from,
> ground level.
Those were photos from directly above. A different perspective shows the
true extent of the damage.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/911.wtc.6.crater.west.air.jpg
Vandar
Of what type? Skyscrapers? Of that particular design?
The U.S. Constitution
news:6nrpf.56$R84...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> "The U.S. Constitution" <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9730EAFE...@207.14.113.17...
>> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in
>> news:s0rpf.42$R84...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>>
>> > Nobody said the building exploded; it collapsed. Knock out a
>> > number of structural supports, heat the remaining steel enough to
>> > have it lose a significant percentage of its structural strength,
>> > and a horizontal
> slice
>> > collapses. The portion of the building above it slams directly
> downward,
>> > collapsing the structural support of a section directly below it,
>> > and
> the
>> > process continues as it pancakes straight downward.
>>
>> Now apply this to WTC 7, and your entire story falls apart.
>>
>
>
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
>
> [...]
> Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which
> said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse.
> With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now
> support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by
> falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important
> thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the
> south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third
> of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10
> stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped
> out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's
> upper stories and its southwest corner. NIST investigators believe a
> combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed
> to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more
> research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an
> example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of
> parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire
> building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or
> "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses
> disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire
> building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the
> structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
>
> According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's
> failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were
> carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area
> for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if
> you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder
> notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the
> entire section comes down."
>
> There are two other possible contributing factors still under
> investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were
> designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With
> columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would
> likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other
> faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
>
> Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no
> firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire
> was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run
> emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly
> small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large
> tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current
> working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel
> [to the fire] for a long period of time."
>
> WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the
> fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the
> building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the
> chain-reaction collapse.
What a lovely steaming pile of horseshit, written by the cousin of the
head of Homeland Security.
--
I'm just a goddamned piece of paper.
http://beosnews.com/
http://www.bedoper.com
http://www.cafepress.com/angeldevil
John P
I'm not sure who you are responding to, since you didn't quote any of the
original message. If it is to me: You ask about my engineering degree (I
don't have one and already mentioned that I have no engineering background),
then ask a bunch of questions about intelligence data & collection and law
enforcement issues - all of which I have already stated I was suspicious of
immediately.
In the final couple of lines you finally ask about the evidence from the
buildings. There were in excess of 1,500 people working to sift through and
remove the debris from ground zero - firemen, search and rescue teams, iron
workers, engineers, heavy equipment operators, etc. They didn't complete the
cleanup until May of 2002 - 8 months after the attack.
If someone makes the claim that there were demolition charges set in those
buildings, then there would be evidence of such among that debris. With over
1,500 workers on site, the masterminds behind such a conspiracy would have
had no way of controlling where that evidence would end up or who would find
it. That would be an impossible task, especially in the early stages of the
cleanup. At the beginning, you are looking for survivors so you move the
rubble on piece at a time - usually with a bucket brigade. Fill up a 5
gallon bucket, pass it along.
Given that politicians can't seem to keep a secret whenever there is more
than one politician involved, I can't imagine more than 1,500 non-government
employees keeping a secret.
What happened at the WTC is exactly what everyone saw. Planes hit the
buildings. Planes blew up. Buildings burned. Buildings collapsed. Nothing
more.
pohak...@gmail.com
I've done some sifting of my own since 9/11, almost from the date
itself, as I watched the live video of people falling to their deaths
and the buildings collapse.
I have no engineering training either, outside of helping my dad build
residential housing in the 50's.
And a period of time were I was a hospital building 'engineer' a fancy
name for building super. Nothing more. Though I did have to study
construction and safety issues such as fire and earthquake hardened
stairwells and elevator shafts. Never saw a building collapse, outside
of vids of demolision.
What I've noticed is that many of the claims, such as the building
appearing to collapse from the bottom up as the top came down is simply
not true. In fact in one shot I watched you could not see the final
collapse at the base as the upper stories cloud of debrie, as it hit,
obscured the view totally.
I saw though no similarity to buildings that were demolished by set
charges. Most of us have seen those on TV.
Many claims about the temperature of the jet fuel burning have been put
forward as not being hot enough to melt the metal parts of the
structures.
What they leave out is something anyone that has worked with metals in
molten or heated form, such as welders. The weight of the metal above
the point of the welding an and does easily distort the metal at the
heated point...long before "melt." It's a known problem in welding. A
good deal of the building was above the points of impact.
That they did not fall just from the impact surprized me, but surely
there was displacement and opening the metal up to direct aerial and
flame contact. The sheathing that covers and protects such structural
components were likely stripped by the aircraft.
And the size and weight of the aircraft would have caused at some
slight buckling.
In fact if you hit a building at the speed of the jets with nothing but
water, you'll likely blow a hole clear through the building.
The physics are pretty apparent to anyone that's experimented with such
things.
I can't remember, but I believe there was acceleration prior to impact.
How fast can a jetliner fly? Well, I know 500 knots isn't impossible.
It just looked slow on video because of the distance.
Here's one citation on speed: "[PDF] The Report on the World Trade
Center Incident: A Critique
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
It was estimated the speed of the plane that. struck the north tower
was 470
miles per hour at ... provisions (based upon the World Trade Center
towers col- ...
www.engr.psu.edu/ae/steelstuff/schulte.pdf - Similar pages
Somewhat less than my 500 knots, but imagine what just about any
moderally hardened material (even a soft material for that matter)
being accelerated to 470 MPH does when it hits just common building
materials. It might not do lots of damage to a tank's armor, but a
building?
What is this strange need to find something not there, and to even
start creatively extruding them from some mass of .... well, the
"extrudable" in their heads?
Your point, of course is the clincher. Explosives residue leave a
pretty easily identified signature. We have plenty of technology to
detect it easily.
And I can't find a single cite to credibly support the claim there was
a speedy rush to recycle. The materials were taken off site, as I
recall and again gone through carefully.
Kane
Morton Davis
<pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135053177.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
through the opening caused by the impact could feed the fire oxygen and
raise the temperature like in a forge.
James H. Hood
<dr...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1134984493.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the
> failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause
> the
> yank sub standard workpersons not doing their work correctly any way
> who gives a fuuk !
Go fuck yourself on the way to Plonkville, moron.
James H. Hood
> its data mining methods identify Mohammed Atta and others as potential
> terrorists, the reaction from higher ups is sweep the matter under the
> rug. A jet training pilot in Minnesota reports suspicious behavior by
> one of his students, nothing. One year before 9/11, passengers on a
> Boston to L.A. jet report suspicious behavior by passengers to the FBI
> (one passenger was actor James Woods, who in an interview said he
> thought the passengers in question were casing the jet for future
> action)
Speaking of demanding bona fides, what the hell are James Woods'
investigative credentials for that statement.
gerry
the flight crew also thought it suspicious. After 9/11, he was on
Larry King discussing how the FBI interviewed him about the incident,
without going into details, he was under government instructions.
Celebrities take precedent over nobodies like flight attendents. From
another website: "While on a commercial flight from Boston to LA in
August, he noticed a group of men acting suspiciously on the plane and
informed a flight attendant that he felt the men were planning to
hijack the plane. He has thus been in several interviews with FBI
agents since the September 11 attacks. [2001]"
The same website describes Woods' father as an intelligence officer and
states that Woods went to MIT on a full scholarship. Your move.
John P
First of all Alan, I'd like to say that I appreciate you engaging me in this
topic of discussion. It is something I have read up on to varying degrees
over the course of the past years since 9/11 (usually because of a new
report or some televised special).
In working on my response to you here over the past couple of hours or so, I
have come across some fascinating stories and articles. In particular, Brian
Clark's story of his escape from Tower 2. I've come across information I've
read before as well as finding new and interesting information from both
sides of the debate.
I just wanted to say Thank You for providing the incentive for me to do so
and I appreciate your opinions and viewpoints expressed here.
I am torn between addressing each of your points, as is my normal method of
response, or just providing my points on their own, in the interest brevity.
This early in the discussion, it would seem we could get off on so many
different tangents so as to make it difficult to wade through everything in
one sitting. After several drafts, I have decided to try to keep with
addressing each of your points, while cutting out as much as seems
reasonable without making it appear as though I am attempting to present
anything other than your entire thought to which I am responding.
Here we go:
"Alan Hope" wrote in a message
re: the hijacking of 4 passenger jets and their use as missiles being an odd
event
> It's not at all common, but that doesn't make it odd.
Actually, being that it is not common (or more accurately, that it has
*never* happened) is exactly what makes it odd.
> Since the hijacking of one aircraft has happened on numerous occasions,
> it's
> only a very small skip and a jump to having the same thing happen four
> times in one day.
By one group? Then deliberately crashed? Into buildings?
You sure can skip and jump a lot farther than I can.
> Not at all the same thing as two buildings falling in an unprecedented
> way, and another falling in a different unprecedented way.
An unprecedented hijacking of four planes. The unprecedented use of them as
missiles. Which leads to an unprecedented collapse of some buildings.
...<???> .... I don't see where one can take a single portion of an entirely
unprecedented event and feel it needs some excuse above and beyond the
unprecedented events that lead up to it.
As for the such a collapse of a building being unprecedented, you might want
to look into the 1967 McCormick Place fire and collapse. It was caused by a
small electrical fire.
>>>> OK... so, if you think WTC 7 didn't come down due to proximity, what is
>>>> your theory?
>>> I have no theory, only deep skepticism.
>>Why?
> Too many impossible things to be asked to believe in the whole
> scenario of that day's events. It just so happens the intercepts are
> too far away; it just so happens there's an exercise going on; it just
> so happens two buildings hit by planes collapse in *precisely* the
> same way as another that wasn't; it just so happens no other buildings
> collapse in any other way; and so on.
The question of intercepts would seem almost irrelevant. Until 9/11, the
idea of the US government authorizing the intentional shooting down of a
passenger jet was an impossible thought. It was unprecedented.
>> No sir. I've read the conspiracy theories and I've read the debunking of
>> those theories. As anyone does, I weigh what I read and digest it within
>> the
>> realm of my experiences, education and knowledge. I have pretty much no
>> knowledge or experience with planes, plane crashes, engineering or
>> building
>> collapses. Never the less, I had to read all of it and decide in my own
>> mind
>> which seemed more credible. In that case, I felt the stories about how
>> the
>> jets crashed (which I also saw repeatedly on film) and how the buildings
>> came down were pretty cut and dried once all the data was in.
> All the data was in? What about the data that was loaded up and taken
> away, in the crime-scene wreckage? All the data you're talking about
> is video footage and its interpretation by this or that expert.
And witnesses and the wreckage that was on site for 8 months and the 1,500+
people who were sifting through that wreckage...
>> I saw nothing suspicious there. The conspiracy sites seemed to raise some
>> good questions
>> initially, but the debunking sites and articles easily proved to me that
>> such questions had no merit.
> You must enlighten me, then, because all the debunk attempts I've ever
> seen have done a pisspoor job at even addressing the main questions,
> let alone sweeping them away. What they tend to do, in my experience,
> is exactly what you've been doing: label it all "conspiracy theory"
> and that's the job done.
I didn't label anything until I had read differing opinions and viewpoints.
I didn't find the unusual conspiracy theories to be credible. Are you
familiar with Occam's Razor? I start there, unless I have a reason to go
elsewhere.
For example, we hear about the towers falling straight down as in a
controlled demolition. OK... I've seen controlled demolitions. That seems a
reasonable question. ... but then I read engineers asking "How else would
something that size fall?" - it seems it would take a huge amount of force
to tilt a building enough to make it fall any other way than straight down.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
So, the question of why they fell straight down doesn't seem too good a
place to hang proof of something other than the obvious answers. At the same
time, I'll admit that I found sites where Dr. Eagar's ideas are questioned,
but I didn't find them to be credible in that those doing the questioning
were not engineers or any other professional that might seem in a likely
position to have sufficient knowledge.
What about WTC 7?
"I was also curious about Building 7 when it was described to me. I told the
person who described it that there must have been another source of fuel in
that building. It turns out there was. Building 7 contained the New York
City Emergency Management Control Station, and as a result, it had three
tanks of diesel fuel holding tens of thousands of gallons to run their
emergency electric generators. What we learn from this is not to store tens
of thousands of gallons of fuel in high-rise buildings. Fortunately, most
high-rises do not have such huge fuel storage facilities."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/letters.html
Although this link isn't proof of anything, I found it a very interesting
read. To some extent, I suppose one might see circumstantial evidence here
in what he doesn't say - he didn't report seeing explosives or unusual
wiring, didn't hear any explosions as the tower he was just in fell. He
notes that the floors above the impact fell, and he felt that would be all
of it, but then the rest of the building fell... just as engineers that
debunk theories of explosives explain. The impacted areas were weakened,
they couldn't hold the weight above them - they fell. The impact of those
floors falling created failures below.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html
Being uncomfortable with simply accepting Dr. Eagar's version (which I noted
was given very shortly after 9/11), I continued to look for others who might
offer some explanation as to what happened and why. Did anyone check for the
possible existence of explosives? Did witnesses report something other than
what should be expected?
On this site, a couple of demolitions experts, one of whom worked at ground
zero, offer their opinions on the question of whether explosives may have
been used.
http://www.wconline.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/coverstory/BNPCoverStoryItem/0,3296,161983,00.html
Oddly enough, one site that I think offers proof against some of the
conspiracy ideas related to the collapse of the buildings is a site that
claims to do just the opposite. First of all, look at this idea of squibs
used to take down WTC 7. The still picture is pretty interesting. Now watch
the video. This person is asking us to believe that *after* WTC 7 began to
fall, a series of explosions were set off on an exterior wall, in a single
corner - one above the other (from about the 40-45th floors).
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/Flashes/squibs_along_southwest_corner.htm
If you have ever seen a building demolition, you'll notice that there *are*
explosions that occur after the initial blast and perhaps even after the
building has begun to fall. The difference between what you see in the WTC 7
video and what you see at the sites below is that the explosions generally
cover an entire floor of the building - not just one corner and not one on
top of the other.
http://www.implosionworld.com/
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/46157/the_master_of_disaster/
On this video, *listen*...
http://media.popularmechanics.com/video/movie_implosion_1.swf
http://media.popularmechanics.com/video/movie_implosion_2.swf
and compare that to what you hear on the WTC 7 video
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/video%20archive/wtc-7_collapse.mpa
This video, which attempt to prove that explosive charges were used in the
WTC collapse shows clearly the top of WTC 2 tilting towards the damaged area
as it collapses. In my mind, this seems to lean more towards Dr. Eagar's
ideas than towards the planned demolition idea.
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Flashes/flashes.htm
I'll state again for clarity, I have no experience or expertise in this
area - my opinions are formed by what I read and see and what I believe to
be credible. Your mileage may vary.
>>One thing I *did* find odd, that I noticed almost immediately, was how
>>quickly "they" knew who all the hijackers were. It was obvious to me that
>>one or more law enforcement or government agencies were already aware of
>>who
>>these people were, what their potential was, and possibly had some
>>specific
>>ideas of what they planned.
>>Those suspicions were confirmed and it was found that our intelligence
>>agencies completely blew it.
> Some of the detail, like the floating fireproof passport, were a
> little Baroque in their exaggeration.
While that does seem incredible, I *do* have some experience in this area
that applies. I was part of the search & rescue / cleanup team at the Marine
Barracks in Beirut on October 24-26, 1983. We found all sorts of things that
didn't make sense. I found a burned arm/hand holding an unburned, undamaged
letter that he had obviously just finished writing as the blast occurred.
There was ammo, grenades, documents... all sorts of things that you would
find and wonder how it wasn't destroy. There were Marines that had died that
looked as if they shouldn't have.We even uncovered Marines who were still
alive on the third day after the bombing! Very unusual things happen in
those situations.
Knowing that, while I can accept it as possible and even believable, I agree
the conveniently finding the passport seems to me, as it did at the time, a
bit suspicious.
BLT Before the bombing
http://www.beirut-memorial.org/history/beforet.html
BLT After the bombing
http://www.1stbusinesslebanon.com/civilwar/pic/pic121.jpg
>>> Including the biggest conspiracy theory of them all? The official
>>> version? Or do you consider that logical?
>> That the official story has been supported over and over by independent
>> sources, I have no reason to feel otherwise.
> Such as?
Such as some of the links I provided above. It is now 2:10 am here. I think
I started this response at around 8:30 or 9:00 pm. I have spent most of this
time doing different searches and reading through various ideas and
opinions - looking for counter opinions and digging through those. It seems
there are many, many people who have some interest in this topic.
> I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of sense can trust any of the
> bastards. Including the independent bastards.
I certainly don't trust politicians. I suspect that the "secrets" of 9/11
have everything to do with what was known and who knew it prior to 9/11. If
you were claiming that the US government "let it happen", I would have a
hard time disagreeing (although I can't say I'd be quick to agree either).
... but the idea that anything caused the WTC buildings to fall other than
the obvious (terrorists crashing planes into WTC 1 & 2) does not seem
logically supported by anything I have seen thus far.
>>>> ... but I am wide open to anything you have to present and will give it
>>>> a
>>>> fair shake.
>>> I rather doubt that.
>>I can't help you there.
> You have the deep resonating sound of a man who's made up his mind,
> and is content to have chosen so wisely.
I suppose I might come across that way, but it is only because I have
already had this discussion with me. I can only say that I can assure you I
haven't seen everything (even after 5 or so hours of digging this evening)
and I accept that there may very well exist something that I would see or
hear that would change my mind.
What's the saying? - Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
anonymous
>
> What a lovely steaming pile of horseshit, written by the cousin of the
> head of Homeland Security.
>
*Your* credibility in criticising the NIST report is zero.
John P
>>WTC 6 was destroyed in the collapse of the towers, as was 3, 4, and 5.
> No, sir, it was not. It was demolished later. In the interim, some
> very odd photographs were taken which show the most unusual crater in
> the middle of the building, punching right through to, or indeed from,
> ground level.
What building is this - WTC 6? Do you have a link to that? Sounds
interesting.
John P
Re; WTC 6
> Those were photos from directly above. A different perspective shows the
> true extent of the damage.
> http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/911.wtc.6.crater.west.air.jpg
I looks to me like that photo also shows that the tower did not fall
straight down onto itself, as some have suggested in the "building were
imploded intentionally" theory. This picture shows that a good portion of it
fell onto (and over) WTC 6.
John P
>>You really believe that no other buildings in history have ever
>>collapsed "by accident"?
> Buildings of that type.
I am under the impression that the WTC towers were unique in their design.
Is that true or are there others of similar design?
John P
> Many claims about the temperature of the jet fuel burning have been put
> forward as not being hot enough to melt the metal parts of the
> structures.
> What they leave out is something anyone that has worked with metals in
> molten or heated form, such as welders. The weight of the metal above
> the point of the welding an and does easily distort the metal at the
> heated point...long before "melt." It's a known problem in welding. A
> good deal of the building was above the points of impact.
Working with the autobody repair industry, I know that to warp metal, it's
not so much how much heat is applied, but what the differential in
temperatures is between different areas of the part. Again, I'm no engineer
so I can't claim to understand the details or mechanics of this, but it
seems that heating up one part of a steel beam can cause it to warp if other
areas of the beam are cooler. I'm not sure what that spread is or how one
might calculate it.
> That they did not fall just from the impact surprized me, but surely
> there was displacement and opening the metal up to direct aerial and
> flame contact. The sheathing that covers and protects such structural
> components were likely stripped by the aircraft.
The exterior of the building was an integral part of what held it up. There
were colums in the middle of the building and the exterior was all colums
with nothing in between the two areas - creating large open, unobstructed
spaces in between. I would think that punching large holes in that exterior
support would go a long way towards causing a collapse. As WTC 2 crumbles,
you can see the top floors of the building lean over towards the opening
created by the plane.
> And the size and weight of the aircraft would have caused at some
> slight buckling.
That's an interesting point I hadn't seen mentioned before. I would think a
great deal of the weight, the fuel, was gone on impact or quickly
thereafter.
> In fact if you hit a building at the speed of the jets with nothing but
> water, you'll likely blow a hole clear through the building.
Yes. Sign makers us a water jet as a cutting tool to make all those shiny
chrome letters.
> The physics are pretty apparent to anyone that's experimented with such
> things.
> Somewhat less than my 500 knots, but imagine what just about any
> moderally hardened material (even a soft material for that matter)
> being accelerated to 470 MPH does when it hits just common building
> materials. It might not do lots of damage to a tank's armor, but a
> building?
I'm not sure what role the speed of the plane played, other than
penetration. Having seen the video of the plane going in one side and the
fireball coming out the other side, I would almsot wonder if the pilot could
have done more damage by hitting the building at a *lower* speed so as to
just get the plane into the building (meaning the resulting explosion would
remain more within the building) - maybe.
> What is this strange need to find something not there, and to even
> start creatively extruding them from some mass of .... well, the
> "extrudable" in their heads?
I remember reading something about the psychology of consiracy theories.
Something that is extreme and, to a point, unbelievable, forces some people
(many, if I recall correctly) to believe that there must be an extreme
answer. How could a single little worm like Lee Harvey Oswald kill one of
the greatest presidents in US history? - simple, he must have had help from
some huge, powerful organization. One that had more power than JFK. ...
which he did have - a gun. JFK's head was no match for the bullet that
struck it.
Then again, such theories gain credibility when we learn of some of the
extreme and evil things men, politicians and governments have done
throughout history.
In the end, you have to try to sort out fact from fiction for yourself. ...
and ask yourself "What does it matter?"
What if the US Government played a role in 9/11? Would you or I fire them?
Would the politicians we replaced them with be significantly different?
Would the WTC suddenly rise back up?
While I am all for finding the truth in anything, to some degree, the search
what people most enjoy. Some times, the actual answers can do nothing more
than satisfy our curiosity.
> Your point, of course is the clincher. Explosives residue leave a
> pretty easily identified signature. We have plenty of technology to
> detect it easily.
One of the links I provided in an earlier post had a couple of demolitions
expert talking about the type of charges one would use and how they leave
teltale "cuts" on the beams. Additionally, my own, non-scientific,
comparison of demolition footage vs. WTC collapse footage seemed to show
some significant differences. One of those differences is that in demolition
footage, you hear a large number of explosions at regular intervals before
the building starts to move. No one that I am aware of has reported hearing
such a large number of explosions.
> And I can't find a single cite to credibly support the claim there was
> a speedy rush to recycle. The materials were taken off site, as I
> recall and again gone through carefully.
From what I saw, there were materials at ground zero as much as 8 months
after 9/11.
John P
> I wonder what the wind direction and speed was on that day. A good wind
> through the opening caused by the impact could feed the fire oxygen and
> raise the temperature like in a forge.
You can judge the wind direction and speed by the smoke - the same smoke
that indicates the fire was oxygen starved.
John P
I was interested, so I found a transcript of Woods explaining what happened
to Bill O'Reilly.
http://prisonplanet.com/transcript_actor_james_woods.html
monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar
>> No, but a "Flight 77 pilot, Charles Burlingame, had drafted a
>> Pentagone's emergency plan in case it was hit by a commercial
>> airliner". Or "Flight 77 hit the only part of the Pentagone that was
>> nearly empty and being renovated to reinforce its structure and counter
>> terrorist explosions".
>> You'd say these are coincidences, right ?
>Bon, maintenant nous voila avec un fan de bandes dessines..
Huh ?
>It doens't take much inteligence to cook up some stupid conspiracy
> It takes even less to believe it.
Was that english ?
>But it does take some minimal intelligence to appreciate when a conspiracy
>theory is, as they say on Texas, "All hat and NO cattle."
Was that english ?
>So, where exactly do you fall in the above range of intelligence, chose ?
I wouldn't fall anywhere at all, but some of my shit would fall on your
hatless cattle head
Are you alright ?
monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar
>...and all the references Osama Bin Laden made to 9/11?
Please give me a cite of OBL saying he planned and did the attacks.
>> No, but a "Flight 77 pilot, Charles Burlingame, had drafted a
>> Pentagone's emergency plan in case it was hit by a commercial
>> airliner". Or "Flight 77 hit the only part of the Pentagone that was
>> nearly empty and being renovated to reinforce its structure and counter
>> terrorist explosions".
>Got a link or cite for the above? I'd be interested in reading it.
Of course, these are well known facts, you can google them or trust my
links:
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cfburling3.htm
http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?p=93038
http://www.newsrake.com/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=2230
Here's Barbara Honegger:
"...the main pilot of the 9-11 Pentagon plane, former Navy and then
Navy Reservist pilot Charles Burlingame, had recently, in a Reserve
assignment at the Pentagon, been part of a Task Force that drafted the
Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit
the building - which his own plane then did. It is therefore very
possible - in fact extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task
force' that Flight 77 pilot "Chick" Burlingame was part of was the
Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon
plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney.
and
Burlingame's 9-11 Pentagon plane not only hit the Pentagon that
morning, it struck a Command and Control center for that morning's
counterterrorism "game" exercise, killing most, if not all, of the
"players".
As for the renovated part of the Pentagone, this was no secret:
monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar
>One thing I *did* find odd, that I noticed almost immediately, was how
>quickly "they" knew who all the hijackers were. It was obvious to me that
>one or more law enforcement or government agencies were already aware of who
>these people were, what their potential was, and possibly had some specific
>ideas of what they planned.
>Those suspicions were confirmed and it was found that our intelligence
>agencies completely blew it.
When you read all the other *odd* coincidences on the following site,
you'd have more doubts in the official version.
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html
Not only they knew about the hijackers but also this:
"That the FBI knew precisely which Florida flight schools
(http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7816) to descend upon hours
after the attacks should make every American feel safer knowing their
federal agents are on the ball."
Also look at this:
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=82
Morton Davis
<monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote in message
news:1135082226.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> John P
>
> >One thing I *did* find odd, that I noticed almost immediately, was how
> >quickly "they" knew who all the hijackers were. It was obvious to me that
> >one or more law enforcement or government agencies were already aware of
who
> >these people were, what their potential was, and possibly had some
specific
> >ideas of what they planned.
>
> >Those suspicions were confirmed and it was found that our intelligence
> >agencies completely blew it.
>
> When you read all the other *odd* coincidences on the following site,
> you'd have more doubts
about your sanity.
Vandar
> John P
>
>
>>...and all the references Osama Bin Laden made to 9/11?
>
>
> Please give me a cite of OBL saying he planned and did the attacks.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
Vandar
Google "Dawson's Field". Four hijackings in the same day has happened
before, but that's where the similarities end.
monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar
>> When you read all the other *odd* coincidences on the following site,
>> you'd have more doubts
>>http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html
>about your sanity.
About my sanity ? Oh no no, i assure you that the contents of the site
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html
has nothing to do with my sanity. Try to read it if you can, you'll
find it very interesting. Just move your mouse pointer to the link
(noramally the text in blue) and click the left button on it. After you
finish reading it, and the available links within it, try to share your
feelings with the rest of us, Moron Davis.
Morton Davis
<monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote in message
news:1135092897....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Morton Davis
>
> >> When you read all the other *odd* coincidences on the following site,
> >> you'd have more doubts
>
>>http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-
to-911.html
>
> >about your sanity.
>
> About my sanity ?
Thank you for removing all doubts by continuing to post OPINIONS FROM BLOGS
as your "proof"
<plonk>
Sport Pilot
The plane was a lot smaller, flew a lot slower, and was not nearly full
of fuel. Also it was nearly at the top of the building, so the
structure did not have as much load, therefore the steel could get a
lot hotter without collapsing.
Morton Davis
"Sport Pilot" <hppil...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1135096928.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
John P
>>...and all the references Osama Bin Laden made to 9/11?
> Please give me a cite of OBL saying he planned and did the attacks.
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml
> Here's Barbara Honegger:
Good links. Some interesting info. I know that war games are a regular
occurance. Some times they are used as a show of force. Most times they are
just training and nothing more. I don't know the exact scenario laid out for
the 9/11 Pentagon session - whether it was a plane "crash" that hit the
building, or an intentional hit.
As for fighter aircraft that were elsewhere, thus not available to
intercept... I was unable to quickly find information on the number of such
aircraft owned by the US military. I wouldn't expect there would be any
attemtps to intercept the first two hijacked aircraft (because no one was
really aware of the threat being posed by them). After the first two
aircraft hit and the plan became obvious, I would expect that fighters would
have been scrambled to go after the other two hijacked plans. That would
require two jets, at least, but more likely two each would be sent. Given
the number of fighter jets I imagine are available in the DC area, I would
believe there would have been four of them readily available. I won't easily
accept the fact that these hijacked planes weren't shot down as some
indication of a government conspiracy or complicity in 9/11. Even once the
authorization to shoot down the planes was given, I believe it would be very
difficult for a US military pilot to shoot down an unarmed civilian
aircraft. Of course, our Navy ships will gladly blow a Russian civilian
passenger jst out of the sky. :-)
Finally, the connection/coincidence regarding the pilot on flight 77 is
interesting and quite a coincidence. In regard to it holding some meaning or
proof of some type of government conspiracy, how do you see it as
meaningful? Isn't the norm in crimes to deflect suspicion *away* from you?
Is there some belief or theory that Charles Burlingame was on some type of
suicide mission of his own?
> As for the renovated part of the Pentagone, this was no secret:
> http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/renovation.html
That part I was aware of, but thanks for the link anyway.
So, to wrap it up... I've seen your info an accept it as legitimate and
true. Taking the next step, how do you feel the war games, the fighter
intercepts and the coincidence of Charles Burlingame's ties to the Pentagon
and this scenario lead one to think that the government was involved in some
plot on 9/11?
In my mind thus far, I would think one might make a case to say these 3
items might offer a bit of evidence that the government was aware of the
9/11 plot a desired to allow it to happen. Similar claims have been made in
regard to Pearl harbor.
One question that comes immediately to my mind in either case is; Given that
many US citizens regularly make comments about the incompetence, ineptitude
and inability to keep secrets or form workable plans of the US government
and politicians in general, how is it that for 9/11 and/or Pearl Harbor,
this same government or these same politicians suddenly become master
planners with an ability to cover every detail and keep it all secret?
monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar
> Please give me a cite of OBL saying he planned and did the attacks.
>http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml
Thanx i'll examine it. Anyway we all know how OBL was a CIA operative,
and i wouldn't be surprised if he still is. Besides this tape appeared
just before Bush's reelection and helped him alot, more than any other
thing Bush could have done (be afraid people, OBL is threatening us,
only I can save your asses, etc.)
> I know that war games are a regular
>occurance. Some times they are used as a show of force. Most times they are
>just training and nothing more. I don't know the exact scenario laid out for
>the 9/11 Pentagon session - whether it was a plane "crash" that hit the
>building, or an intentional hit.
Well as far as i read, at a time everybody thought there were 11
hijakced airplanes. Recently a site said that up to 29 probable targets
were identified. Everybody was lost in this jungle, no one knew what to
do. I think OBL timed it pretty well :)
>Finally, the connection/coincidence regarding the pilot on flight 77 is
>interesting and quite a coincidence. In regard to it holding some meaning or
>proof of some type of government conspiracy, how do you see it as
>meaningful? Isn't the norm in crimes to deflect suspicion *away* from you?
>Is there some belief or theory that Charles Burlingame was on some type of
>suicide mission of his own?
I don't really know as you can expect :) But this could be another
pharaon-architect-that-had-to-be-killed-after-building-the-pyramid-maze
stuff. He could have been consulted (as an expert pilot and an expert
on such attacks) while conceiving the attack plan, and then got rid
off. He could still be alive, etc.
>So, to wrap it up... I've seen your info an accept it as legitimate and
>true. Taking the next step, how do you feel the war games, the fighter
>intercepts and the coincidence of Charles Burlingame's ties to the Pentagon
>and this scenario lead one to think that the government was involved in some
>plot on 9/11?
At least they knew of it, maybe they commanded it (directly or
inderectly) and at most they did it.
>One question that comes immediately to my mind in either case is; Given that
>many US citizens regularly make comments about the incompetence, ineptitude
>and inability to keep secrets or form workable plans of the US government
>and politicians in general, how is it that for 9/11 and/or Pearl Harbor,
>this same government or these same politicians suddenly become master
>planners with an ability to cover every detail and keep it all secret?
Well, do you know what went on in the last meeting of the nearest
freemasons lounge to you ? I guess not. This kind of people never talk.
Some might have been killed. They could have used foreigners, the best
are the mossad: they benefit the most, are the most competent, they
never talk, and they are truly motivated, etc. Besides, lots of mossad
agents were caught around 911 events and places (flight schools, etc..)
Another thing, anyone could call someone and tell him he's calling on
the account of OBL (with an arabic accent of course), make the command,
give the money (mind the pakistani head intelligence that transferred
money to Atta), and wait for it to happen. This someone will manage the
whole thing or just outsource it, etc.
John P
<monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar> wrote in message
>>One thing I *did* find odd, that I noticed almost immediately, was how
>>quickly "they" knew who all the hijackers were. It was obvious to me that
>>one or more law enforcement or government agencies were already aware of
>>who
>>these people were, what their potential was, and possibly had some
>>specific
>>ideas of what they planned.
>>Those suspicions were confirmed and it was found that our intelligence
>>agencies completely blew it.
> When you read all the other *odd* coincidences on the following site,
> you'd have more doubts in the official version.
I still haven't found cause to disbelieve or suspect the official version of
what happened. I don't see legitimate evidence of planted explosives,
windowless aircraft or pods on aircraft.
I do, however, see some legitimate reasons to suspect the official version
of who knew what and who was involved. I don't need much convincing there in
light of the inaction on the part of so many different agencies.
> http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html
Interesting link with a HUGE amount of information. I marked it so that I
can go back when I have more time to get into it in detail. I'd like to
research a bit more on some of what is presented there as there were a
couple of things that initially struck me as unlikely or difficult to
support/prove. That isn't to say that I didn't see some things there that
did seem obviously legitimate. Overall, it seems what is presented on this
site would support my curiosity in the area of who knew what, when and why.
I don't see it supporting theories beyond that.
> Not only they knew about the hijackers but also this:
> "That the FBI knew precisely which Florida flight schools
> (http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7816) to descend upon hours
> after the attacks should make every American feel safer knowing their
> federal agents are on the ball."
That was one of the things I noticed right away, and it seemed odd to me
immediately.
> Also look at this:
> http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=82
Again - a HUGE amount of information. Right now, I cannot give it a fair
amount of time right now to go through and digest, so it is marked for
later.
John P
>> Actually, being that it is not common (or more accurately, that it has
>> *never* happened) is exactly what makes it odd.
> Google "Dawson's Field". Four hijackings in the same day has happened
> before, but that's where the similarities end.
No shit. Good find!
Morton Davis
"John P" <noad...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OL2dnSH10Ihz3TXe...@comcast.com...
> > Not only they knew about the hijackers but also this:
> > "That the FBI knew precisely which Florida flight schools
> > (http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7816) to descend upon hours
> > after the attacks should make every American feel safer knowing their
> > federal agents are on the ball."
>
> That was one of the things I noticed right away, and it seemed odd to me
> immediately.
>
>
Florida who were not interested in learning to take off or land during the
Clinton administration. The FBI did nothing about it, nor did anyone else.
The information was not passed on to the Bush administration.
Sky King
>Morton Davis
>
>>> When you read all the other *odd* coincidences on the following site,
>>> you'd have more doubts
>>>http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html
>
>>about your sanity.
>
>About my sanity ?
Yes, given that you that you sit around and try to make up "physical laws"
all of which violate actual physics.
Would you call that "sanity", monnoidiot?
Perhaps you need another reminder that you have been easily refuted on
everything you have ever claimed here, monnodunce.
But it is fun to watch you dissemble.
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
>"John P" wrote in message
>> > Not only they knew about the hijackers but also this:
>> > "That the FBI knew precisely which Florida flight schools
>> > (http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=7816) to descend upon hours
>> > after the attacks should make every American feel safer knowing their
>> > federal agents are on the ball."
>>
>> That was one of the things I noticed right away, and it seemed odd to me
>> immediately.
>>
>The FBI had been informed that there were arabs taking flight training in
>Florida who were not interested in learning to take off or land during the
>Clinton administration. The FBI did nothing about it, nor did anyone else.
>The information was not passed on to the Bush administration.
Need we wonder why?
When those Clinton wiretaps nailed
Mohammed Atta and his crew, what did Clinton do?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/12/111547.shtml
"You can't even touch him - it doesn't matter what information you have."
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/112449.jpg
LIBs:: If Pearl Harbor happened today.
John P
> The FBI had been informed that there were arabs taking flight training in
> Florida who were not interested in learning to take off or land during the
> Clinton administration. The FBI did nothing about it, nor did anyone else.
Although, you have to admit that with our millions of laws and rules under
which such agencies operate, it is not unusual to "know" something, yet be
unable to legally take any action. Although highly unconstitutional and
extremely dangerous, I think there are certain instances where top secret
government mercinaries/hit squads have their place.
> The information was not passed on to the Bush administration.
Again, if it had been, then what?
pohak...@gmail.com
John P wrote:
> "Morton Davis" wrote in a message
>
> > The FBI had been informed that there were arabs taking flight training in
> > Florida who were not interested in learning to take off or land during the
> > Clinton administration. The FBI did nothing about it, nor did anyone else.
I believe this was not proven. Just a claim. Yet, John's point below is
well taken. So the puckering what?
I do find that claim a bit preposturous though. Imagine if YOU were
being trained to be a terrorist. Would YOU give away the game by doing
something so very obviously part of a plan for terrorism?
On the other hand, who knows but what foreign nationals have done that
before and there is some plausible explaination...like planning on
continuing training later, or back home in TO and landings. Hell, my
kids used to make up plausible sounding explanations for far more
bizzare behaviors. <smile>
And then, the FBI has a couple of more jobs to cover than follow up on
flight training anomolies. But don't we wish they had caught it.
I have wonder, while doing their jobs at the time how many OTHER more
recognizable events they WERE tracking and did in fact catch the bad
guys.
> Although, you have to admit that with our millions of laws and rules under
> which such agencies operate, it is not unusual to "know" something, yet be
> unable to legally take any action. Although highly unconstitutional and
> extremely dangerous, I think there are certain instances where top secret
> government mercinaries/hit squads have their place.
They too easily get out of hand, or are used for far more than the
intended mission. The Israeli's have gone through that with the Munich
retaliation assassination squad, I've heard.
Just keep pluggin' along is my motto. Use what we have, legally
constitututed, spend the bucks we can afford, and shrug our shoulders
if it's not enough, and just keep pluggin' along. Bush has the right
idea. We'll get them eventually.
In fact I think Bin Laden was dead long ago. We got him in the caves.
But it serves everyone to keep pretending we didn't. Though the other
side, since they can't produce him, are becoming more impotent because
of that failing. Imagine if they put him on live TV somewhere.
So why don't they? He's no more.
There's lots of local profit to the tribesmen along the Pakistani
border to pretend he's alive. Guides, tipoff pay, settling old tribal
scores by making someone a target of our or other troops, etc. Din
Loudin' will be around that way for some time.
> > The information was not passed on to the Bush administration.
>
> Again, if it had been, then what?
A common view outside working intelligence circles (and in fact outside
most professional working circles) is that a piece of "work" hits the
desk and everyone gets with it to accept or reject it.
The truth is far more simple, and paradoxically more complex. It's a
matter of a flood of data and materials being sifted, grouped,
rejected, until the pile grows smaller and smaller, leaving only a few
that are acted upon.
One can see the risk of passing over something that was important
USUALLY ONLY IN RETROSPECT. Sorry for the shout, but having been a
"sifter" I know the difficulty of the job.
So, the decisions makers never see the mountain of material, only the
few pieces deemed significant. Sometimes they too turn out to be
nothing, and something that important piece was filed away under
"maybe, maybe not, mostly not, unlikely, and bullshit" turns out to
have been hugely significant.
I think I recall someone coming up with a figure on how many foreign
nationals enroll in american flight schools, and it's enormous. No
suprize. Ours are the best.
Yep, lots of them...and most perfectly legitimate:
Just one last thought, and I'll probably get a knock at my door for
this:
Does anyone think it unusual that the FBI or other LE agency would
conceal that they are indeed doing close survaillence for good reason?
NO one notices that if it became public that they are in fact very
interested and doing ongoing investigation IT WOULD BLOW THE GAME, and
the bad guys would just change tactics.
Kane
pohak...@gmail.com
That is questionable.
Certainly in one case we KNOW of, they did something about it:
http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/moussaoui.html
"... Which leads to the case of Zacharias Moussaoui. After flunking
out of the Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma (August 2001) due
to poor flying skills, Moussaoui began training to fly jumbo jets at a
flight school in Egan, Minnesota (Pan Am International Flight Academy).
The Director of Operations at the Academy (John Rosengren) recounted
how Moussaoui's instructor was "concerned and wondered why someone
who was not a pilot and had so little experience was trying to pack so
much training into such a short time...." There was much discussion by
him about how much fuel was on board a 747-400 and how much damage that
could cause if it hit anything.
More significantly, Moussaoui did not appear to be interested in
takeoffs or landings, only in steering! His instructors noted at the
time that he was inept in basic flying procedures, yet he had paid over
$6,000 in cash for expensive training on an advanced commercial jet
simulator. It just didn't add up. Even the flight school's own
employees began whispering that he could be a hijacker.
As a result of these concerns, the Minneapolis FBI was contacted and
Moussaoui was arrested on August 16, 2001. ... "
Just because the FBI doesn't announce it's investigations while
underway doesn't mean they aren't happening.
To force them to do so would be like requiring them to make their
informants and agents under cover wear FBI T-shirts as the last item of
clothing put on for their "cover."
Kane
Alan Hope
>> Buildings of that type.
Steel-framed high-rise towers. Not one has ever come down as a result
of fire, except on 9-11, when it happened twice. Never before, and
never since.
And another came down on the same day, WTC 7, but for a different
reason. So in all of history, only three occurences, two causes, one
locus, one date.
--
AH
Alan Hope
>"Alan Hope" wrote in a message
>
>>>WTC 6 was destroyed in the collapse of the towers, as was 3, 4, and 5.
>
>> No, sir, it was not. It was demolished later. In the interim, some
>> very odd photographs were taken which show the most unusual crater in
>> the middle of the building, punching right through to, or indeed from,
>> ground level.
>
>What building is this - WTC 6? Do you have a link to that? Sounds
>interesting.
>
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/911.wtc.6.crater.west.air.jpg
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2/numbersixafter_closeup.jpg
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_other.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc6.html
--
AH
The U.S. Constitution
203.26.24.228:
> "The U.S. Constitution" <KILLFIL...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9731C906B...@207.14.113.17:
>
>>
>> What a lovely steaming pile of horseshit, written by the cousin of the
>> head of Homeland Security.
>>
>
> *Your* credibility in criticising the NIST report is zero.
Oh, really?
The NIST report that says there was no significant fire in WTC 1's core?
; )
Who needs to criticize it? It supports the idea of a demolition.
What makes Chertoff's cousin credible, anyway?
--
I'm just a goddamned piece of paper.
http://beosnews.com/
http://www.bedoper.com
http://www.cafepress.com/angeldevil
John P
>> Although, you have to admit that with our millions of laws and rules
>> under
>> which such agencies operate, it is not unusual to "know" something, yet
>> be
>> unable to legally take any action. Although highly unconstitutional and
>> extremely dangerous, I think there are certain instances where top secret
>> government mercinaries/hit squads have their place.
> They too easily get out of hand, or are used for far more than the
> intended mission. The Israeli's have gone through that with the Munich
> retaliation assassination squad, I've heard.
Yeah, yeah... just that every once in a while, you realize that some things
are just better dealt with in an unpleasant manner. Kind of like the
prisoner who killed Dahmer. Lots of press about how charges would be brought
against him and his sentence extended, etc. ... then they handed him a bit
of cash, some clothes and forgot to lock the door to his cell.
> In fact I think Bin Laden was dead long ago. We got him in the caves.
> But it serves everyone to keep pretending we didn't. Though the other
> side, since they can't produce him, are becoming more impotent because
> of that failing. Imagine if they put him on live TV somewhere.
I would be surprised if survived the earthquake. I find it hard to believe
he didn't get buried in a cave. The US ought to just very publicly declare
that he is dead so that he'll be forced to show his face if he isn't.
John P
>>I am under the impression that the WTC towers were unique in their design.
>>Is that true or are there others of similar design?
> Steel-framed high-rise towers. Not one has ever come down as a result
> of fire, except on 9-11, when it happened twice. Never before, and
> never since.
Let me see if I can find the link with the picture....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html
Scroll down just a little to the two graphics with the following text
beneath them;
"Earlier skyscrapers (top) had columns spaced evenly across every floor. The
World Trade Center (bottom) broke with tradition by having columns only in
the central core and along the exterior walls"
...and also read here about the unique and innovative design of the WTC
towers;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation2.html
So clearly, no building had been built like that *before* WTC, so a similar
collapse couldn't have possibly happened before. Have any been built using
that same type of design since? I suspect the Sears Tower is of similar
design (with the outside walls offereing a good portion of the structural
support), just based on what it looks like on the outside.
How many buildings of that type and design have been hit by large aircraft?
How many of them have had a fire of any significance? How many have suffered
any structural damage by explosion, natural disaster or other method?
As I hinted at in a previous message - in 1967, as relatively small
electrical fire sufficently weakened the structural steel of the McCormick
place convention center and caused it to collapse.
> And another came down on the same day, WTC 7, but for a different
> reason. So in all of history, only three occurences, two causes, one
> locus, one date.
In all of history, only 2 skyscrapers ever hit by large passenger jets with
full fuel loads. What can we reasonably compare that with?
If the collapse was not caused by the impact, the loss of significant parts
of the exterior structure and fires, what else might have cause them to
collapse? I spent a great deal of time last night/early this morning
researching the possibility that explosives were used in a controlled
demolition type manner, but it seems that there is no reasonable shred of
evidence to suggest this might have been the case. Demolitions experts,
structural engineers, video and eyewitness statements all indicate a lack of
evidence for the use of explosives. If it wasn't explosives and it wasn't
the planes, what was it?
John P
>>>>WTC 6 was destroyed in the collapse of the towers, as was 3, 4, and 5.
>>> No, sir, it was not. It was demolished later. In the interim, some
>>> very odd photographs were taken which show the most unusual crater in
>>> the middle of the building, punching right through to, or indeed from,
>>> ground level.
>>What building is this - WTC 6? Do you have a link to that? Sounds
>>interesting.
> http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/911.wtc.6.crater.west.air.jpg
In this picture, you can clearly see the outer structure of one of the WTC
towers (1 or 2, I'm not sure which);
a) is laying against the right side (front?) of WTC 6
b) fell across the top of WTC 6
c) fell beyond WTC 6
Given the size and weight of WTC 1 or 2, would you expect to see any less
damage to WTC 6 after being crushed by a large portion of the larger tower?
> http://www.serendipity.li/wot/psyopnews2/numbersixafter_closeup.jpg
> http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_other.htm
> http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc6.html
One of your links got me to here:
http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html
Where I read this:
"At 9:24, fire rescue received a call from a frightened man who said that
the stairway had collapsed on the 105th floor of Tower Two. It would be an
omen." - p. 641
"At 9:47, in a nearby office, a woman called fire rescue with an ominous
message. The floor underneath her, she said, was beginning to collapse."
James Bamford, "Body of Secrets," (2002 update) p. 64
Two people inside the towers just before they collapsed are reporting
portions of the building are starting to collapse... neither reports hearing
or seeing explosions.
I think focusing on the controlled demolition/explosives theories only
serves to detract from the real and more easily proven facts regarding
actions of various people and agencies within the US government. I'm not
sure whether these facts would prove complacency or complicity.
pohak...@gmail.com
monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
> John P
>
> >> Still doesn't explain WTC 7.
>
> >I would be more suspicious if 2 buildings the size of WTC I & II collapsed
> >and *didn't* take out any of the buildings nearby.
>
> Well closer building to WTC did not fall. They were burning too.
Burning does not mean the structure was weakened. They were not hit by
planes.
One may burn a building to the ground an still have the supporting
structure standing.
One sees this frequently. In fact it's built into most modern
structures so there is a still standing passageway until the very end.
The last thing to go should be the protected stairwells, all reinforced
concrete and heavy steel beams and steel staircomponents.
> >What's next - the "A plane didn't hit the Pentagon, a missile did" theory?
>
> No, but a "Flight 77 pilot, Charles Burlingame, had drafted a
> Pentagone's emergency plan in case it was hit by a commercial
> airliner".
I doubt that any critical government building, from the FBI to the
building housing the department of agriculture lacks various emergency
plans for many kinds of possible catastrophes, from fire to earthquakes
to terrorist strikes. You are not making your point.
> Or "Flight 77 hit the only part of the Pentagone that was
> nearly empty and being renovated to reinforce its structure and counter
> terrorist explosions".
>
> You'd say these are coincidences, right ?
If you look I think you will find it perfectly logical to be working on
that section first. It had the most open long approach that an
approaching aircraft could use for a sure hit.
Why would it not be a coincidence?
And what is the plural for?
What other coincidences are you referring to? I've seen more nutcase
unprovable claims about 9/11 than just about any other historic event I
can think of.
The only thing that stands our here to me is the common reaction by the
impotent to strike out at the perceived "powerful" (daddy) with
unsupported claims of malevolence to bolster the accusers sense of
power...which of course is neglegible.
Now IF you have some solid proof, why are you not charging government
officials criminally?
If you have none and are simply guessing, and building your accusations
on unfounded reports you are just pissin' upwind.
It's amusing but it gets your feet all wet.
Kane
Morton Davis
<pohak...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135135941.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
evidence that will trump theirs.
James H. Hood
gerry <gerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135063695....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> He was a passenger on the plane, so he was an eyewitness.
And exactly how does that qualify Woods to know what is suspicious behavior?
Amazing, how whackjobs are willing to confer instant expertise on
celebrities.
James H. Hood
> The same website describes Woods' father as an intelligence officer and
> states that Woods went to MIT on a full scholarship. Your move.
My father is a doctor, so by your risible criteria I'm qualified to conduct
surgery on you. Shall we call the anaesthesist?
monnomi...@yahoo.com.ar
>> Well closer building to WTC did not fall. They were burning too.
>Burning does not mean the structure was weakened. They were not hit by
>planes.
Yes but the WTC structure held the impact, just as the architects built
it to endure: a commercial ariline direct hit.
The fires were dying ones and not fierce fires. The smoke was black
indicating oxygen starving fires. The temperature was going down and
there were no earthquakes nor violent winds that day, the structure was
holding and the temperatures going down. What initiated the collapse ?
>One may burn a building to the ground an still have the supporting
>structure standing.
Yes that's the way it normally happens.
>One sees this frequently. In fact it's built into most modern
>structures so there is a still standing passageway until the very end.
>The last thing to go should be the protected stairwells, all reinforced
>concrete and heavy steel beams and steel staircomponents.
Exactly. Some people escaped the south tower upper part after the
impact, which means all was not burning.
>> No, but a "Flight 77 pilot, Charles Burlingame, had drafted a
>> Pentagone's emergency plan in case it was hit by a commercial
>> airliner".
>I doubt that any critical government building, from the FBI to the
>building housing the department of agriculture lacks various emergency
>plans for many kinds of possible catastrophes, from fire to earthquakes
>to terrorist strikes. You are not making your point.
Of course they have, that's not the problem. We're talking about the
guy that helped draft such a plan, being the pilot of the plane that
"followed" his plan after being "hijacked". It appears the plane hit
offices where people concerned with this plan worked. Apparently lots
of them are gone. Now this is a huge "coincidence", if a coincidence at
all.
>> Or "Flight 77 hit the only part of the Pentagone that was
>> nearly empty and being renovated to reinforce its structure and counter
>> terrorist explosions".
>> You'd say these are coincidences, right ?
>If you look I think you will find it perfectly logical to be working on
>that section first. It had the most open long approach that an
>approaching aircraft could use for a sure hit.
>Why would it not be a coincidence?
Because a plane could hit anywhere :) and it is not the only section
where a plane could approach for sure hit. The whole pentagone is a
"sure hit" for any airplane. Besides, the renovations were intended to
counter outer "explosions" like a car bomb, never a plane crash, and
they've been going for months and months. The plan (i think it is
called MISCAL or something like that) on the other hand, took care of
commercial plane hits.
>And what is the plural for?
>What other coincidences are you referring to? I've seen more nutcase
>unprovable claims about 9/11 than just about any other historic event I
>can think of.
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html
>Now IF you have some solid proof, why are you not charging government
>officials criminally?
Because i'm not american, i live in a democratic country. Besides, in
order to engage a law suite you have to have a hard case. For what
reason would someone like you and me charge the government ? Only those
"involved", like victims family would have such cases. And as far as i
know they did charge the government, but so far nothing has happened (i
have no details so don't ask)
>If you have none and are simply guessing, and building your accusations
>on unfounded reports you are just pissin' upwind.
Sometimes it is pretty relaxing to piss up or down wind..