Re: 9/11 Truth?

September 11, 2007

All this conspiracy stuff is a lot of rot. Wings don't stop on impact like in the cartoons but are pulled through into the building by their kinetic energy. There is a difference between a plane striking a rocky mountain slope and nose diving into a dirt field. I've seen pictures and footage from WWII and Korea of planes that hit at an angle and were scattered, while others that nose dived in left very little on the surface. IN both cases, we are talking about a 80 + ton chunk of metal moving at 500 miles per hour. The kinetic energy there is huge. The military uses 2,000 pound concrete filled bombs that can level buildings. Is it any surprise that something 80 times heavier does more damage?

Everything brings out the nut jobs. Remember the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City? Shortly after that, Clinton blamed the "Right-wing conspiracy" of talk radio, newspapers and the internet for it. He tried to press a measure to shut them down, in gross violation of the First Amendment. Conspiracy? Did Clinton know about the attack and let it happen to shut down his opposition? Did he order it? Lots of other things with him too.

Here is something else to consider. After 9/11, Bin Laudin got in trouble in the Islamic world because he had not carried out the attack properly, according to their culture. He was supposed to give the offer of converting to Islam first, then if declined, he could do what he wanted to. So, he goes to the Islamic high priest in Meccah and asks for permission and what he can do. He was told that he could kill up to 4 million Americans, including 2 million children. That's right, he has permission from on high to kill 2 million children. Remember, I can't spell it, but that Russian school the Chechin terrorists took over and killed all those children?

I really don't think he'd be doing that if he were just part of some White House conspiracy.

These "educated" people, and remember, there were many educated Nazis too, especially those running the "family camps where the grass was green," are a bunch of attention grabbing idiots. There is always some twit who will come up with a bizarre theory about everything from the moon landing to the moron I had to endure about the collapse of a dam.

It is just complete nonsense.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

September 11, 2007

In a message dated 9/11/2007 2:43:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply writes:

There was also a rumor going around that most Jews had left the building or failed to show up for work on 911, which spurred on the idea that maybe Israel caused this to provoke the US to attack somewhere int he middle east or at least take Israel's side against them.

I've heard that, but it doesn't make much sense. The US is already Israel's strongest ally in the world, even though they have pulled dirty tricks on us (USS Liberty, selling our military technology, etc.). Trying some kind of conspiracy like that would only backfire on them and hurt them very badly.

The plane was not hitting a solid object like a mountain. It was hitting an object built more like a screen, and went through the trade center like a potato goes through a slicer to make french fries. The wings contain the fuel, and the wings partially folded into the plane upon impact, which was why they did not simply sheer through part of the tower. The fuel is kept in the wings, and the fuel ignighted on impact, spilling across the floors as the jet cut through them. Many of the support posts inside the tower were severed on impact. Others held. Jet fuel, which is more flamable than the gasoline we put in out cars, burns very hot. These high temperatures weekened the remaining support pillars causing them to be unable to support the heavy weight of the towers above. The towers then collapsed exactly the way they would under these circumstances. If you made a tower out of a stack of cards and removed one card from the bottom, the tower would tip to one side and collapse. But if you removed a number of cards across one of the middle sections, the tower would collapse downward.

Very good points here, especially about the building being like a screen.

Many of the Tower supports were cut, but they could have survived that alone. The Towers were designed to take a strike from an aircraft, though the ones that hit them were larger than planned for. However, there was enough structure remaining in the outer skin and the inner column to have supported the Towers at least much longer than they did.

Fire was the real killer. Over time, the fires weakened the steel enough that it lost its integrity and failed. Bear in mind how much weight those columns carried. All those floors above aren't merely static, but are potential energy. Each piece in a building contains potential energy. That energy is imparted by lifting it into position, representing the energy needed to overcome gravity and get that piece where you want it. As long as the building is strong, that force is balanced by the strength of the building. If that strength is violated, then all that potential energy surrenders to gravity and is released.

Fireproofing is another factor. Up to about the 64th floor, asbestos insulation was used on the columns. After about that point, it was discontinued. This was because of anti-asbestos litigation and fears that were cropping up at the time. While it probably would not have prevented the collapse, asbestos would have delayed it a little longer. Most likely, however, the insulation that was used was torn away from some columns by the impact and flying debris. Many columns would still have been protected though, and a higher quality insulation could have given some more time before the collapse.

Asuming for a moment that someone simply detonated some dynamite or C4 explosive and brough the towers down, one thing blows your story as to the conspiracy theory...50,000 people work in those towers and an unusual number of people called in sik that day. The majority of those that DID show evacuated themselves before the towers fell. Can we reasonably expect that of those 50,000 who did not show up for work or who escaped the fall of the towers that -if they were in on it- they would ALL hold their tongues?

A factor here is that the attacks came before the buildings were full. That accounts a lot for the lower death toll. Had the attacks come even an hour later, there would have been many more people in them.

From Day 1 of the Roswell incident you had people within the nearby airbase spilling the beans about supposed aliens landing. I find it hard to believe that anyone who was in on a plot to bring the trade center down could stay quiet so long without their guilt provoking them to reveal everything. Aside from that, how many times do we hear of murder investigations where someone comes forward claiming to be the killer but who turns out to be some mentally ill person trying to gain recognition? Yet notone such person has come forward truthfully or falsely "admitting" involvement in the plot. Anyone could go to the media or even a tabloid and make such an assertion before they could be "gotten to" by the government. Yet no one has.

Good points.

But let's say there WAS a plot. What was the objective? If it was an attempt to keep the Republicans in office, that certainly backfired. If it was so that we could mess around in the Middle East, that seems unlikely. We didn't need to blow up anything before we invaded Grenada or Panama. If it's to take away our civil liberties, that seems counterproductive seeing as we were a happier, more cooperative and manageable society BEFORE 911 and a resentful society SINCE 911 now that some of our liberties have been removed.

If the government tried a serious attempt against civil liberties, they would go for the guns first. All dictatorships disarm the people first, to prevent effective resistance. We still have ours, though for how much longer is another matter. The US government would also have a problem because it is unlikely that enough soldiers would turn their weapons on US citizens. They might help in suppressing riots, but it is unlikely that they would do the things a dictatorship would require. I would be far more worried about some kind of civilian group that owed its allegiance to a political party rather than the Constitution, like Hitler's SA. However, I can see such "Civic Action Groups" being developed and used to brutalize civilians while the military was kept otherwise occupied and unable to interfere.

Some liberties have been lost, but only because of Political Correctness. Because of PC, we can't name our enemy or take direct action against them. Instead, we have these silly things like grandmothers and children pulled out for random searches, while Imams who make a great public show of praying in the airport and being very suspicious on the plane sue when called on it.

It just does not make any sense to my Aspie mind.I do agree, however, that Bush and Cheney have used this incident as a blank check to do whatever they want to re-arrange the middle east.

This is true. Afghanistan made sense because that was where our enemy was. However, we botched it by going in weak and with a lack of ruthlessness that would have impressed our enemies. Had we gone in a bit later with more strength and with a freer use of firepower, we would have sent a message not to mess with us again. It also would have helped to place a higher bounty on Bin Laudin and others. We did pay out the bounties we placed that were fulfilled, so this might have worked with Bin Laudin too.

TomAdministrator

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

September 11, 2007

" Sorry, my Aspie Logic just can't let go of these and more

inconsistencies... "

There was also a rumor going around that most Jews had left the

building or failed to show up for work on 911, which spurred on the

idea that maybe Israel caused this to provoke the US to attack

somewhere int he middle east or at least take Israel's side against

them.

The plane was not hitting a solid object like a mountain. It was

hitting an object built more like a screen, and went through the

trade center like a potato goes through a slicer to make french

fries. The wings contain the fuel, and the wings partially folded

into the plane upon impact, which was why they did not simply sheer

through part of the tower. The fuel is kept in the wings, and the

fuel ignighted on impact, spilling across the floors as the jet cut

through them. Many of the support posts inside the tower were

severed on impact. Others held.

Jet fuel, which is more flamable than the gasoline we put in out

cars, burns very hot. These high temperatures weekened the remaining

support pillars causing them to be unable to support the heavy

weight of the towers above. The towers then collapsed exactly the

way they would under these circumstances.

If you made a tower out of a stack of cards and removed one card

from the bottom, the tower would tip to one side and collapse. But

if you removed a number of cards across one of the middle sections,

the tower would collapse downward.

Asuming for a moment that someone simply detonated some dynamite or

C4 explosive and brough the towers down, one thing blows your story

as to the conspiracy theory...

50,000 people work in those towers and an unusual number of people

called in sik that day. The majority of those that DID show

evacuated themselves before the towers fell.

Can we reasonably expect that of those 50,000 who did not show up

for work or who escaped the fall of the towers that -if they were in

on it- they would ALL hold their tongues?

From Day 1 of the Roswell incident you had people within the nearby

airbase spilling the beans about supposed aliens landing. I find it

hard to believe that anyone who was in on a plot to bring the trade

center down could stay quiet so long without their guilt provoking

them to reveal everything.

Aside from that, how many times do we hear of murder investigations

where someone comes forward claiming to be the killer but who turns

out to be some mentally ill person trying to gain recognition? Yet

notone such person has come forward truthfully or

falsely " admitting " involvement in the plot. Anyone could go to the

media or even a tabloid and make such an assertion before they could

be " gotten to " by the government. Yet no one has.

But let's say there WAS a plot. What was the objective? If it was an

attempt to keep the Republicans in office, that certainly backfired.

If it was so that we could mess around in the Middle East, that

seems unlikely. We didn't need to blow up anything before we invaded

Grenada or Panama. If it's to take away our civil liberties, that

seems counterproductive seeing as we were a happier, more

cooperative and manageable society BEFORE 911 and a resentful

society SINCE 911 now that some of our liberties have been removed.

It just does not make any sense to my Aspie mind.

I do agree, however, that Bush and Cheney have used this incident as

a blank check to do whatever they want to re-arrange the middle

east.

Tom

Administrator

September 11, 2007

---

> Jet fuel, which is more flamable than the gasoline we put in out

> cars, burns very hot.

Sorry, you are thinking of the fuel put in the old reciprocating

plane engines which was high octane fuel. Jet fuel is basicaly

Kerosene. My dad use to build jet engine components @ Howmet and

before that, designed and built the engines @ Lycoming. He verified

that Kerosene is what is used and it is less volatle than gasoline.

> Asuming for a moment that someone simply detonated some dynamite or

> C4 explosive and brough the towers down, one thing blows your story

> as to the conspiracy theory...

>

> 50,000 people work in those towers and an unusual number of people

> called in sik that day. The majority of those that DID show

> evacuated themselves before the towers fell.

It was reported that two weeks before 9/11 there were " emergency

drills " where each floor had to be evacuated, one at a time. A

worker there could not understand why since they were never done in

the 15 years he had worked there.

>

> Can we reasonably expect that of those 50,000 who did not show up

> for work or who escaped the fall of the towers that -if they were

in

> on it- they would ALL hold their tongues?

They are not in on it and they are not holding their tongues. I am

originally from Connecticut and my parents are still out there. The

people of New York don't by the official explanation and are vocal

about it. Mainstream media (owned by conservative corporations)

don't report it but go out there and you will hear & read about it in

the smaller papers.

> But let's say there WAS a plot. What was the objective? If it was

an

> attempt to keep the Republicans in office, that certainly

backfired.

There was a think-tank in washington that had Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld,

and Cheny for members. It was called The New American Century. It

put out a manifesto titled " Rebuilding America's Defenses " (I

downloaded a copy off the internet) and it speaks of the need

for " another Pearl Harbor " to get this country on the right track.

Interestingly enough, the manifesto was released in September of

2000. After the fall of communism, the war machine fell apart.

Theirs is an attempt to create the new -ism for the war machine to

profit off of. Without Commun-ism we now have terror-ism. Kind of

like the war on drugs. It isn't a war with a defined country or

people, it is a war on an idea.

go to the website I mentioned earlier...take a few minutes if you are

so sure of all this. Watch the movie Loose Change. You can download

it at Google Video. My dad is an MIT educated metalurgical research

engineer and after viewing the film he replied " I can not throw

stones at this film. " The more you read, the more you will understand

that there are scientific papers that are going through the peer-

rteview stage before pubication. It takes almost 5 years for a

scientific paper to go through the peer review process before it gets

into a respectable science journal...not Popular Mechanice, but real

science journals.

September 12, 2007

In a message dated 9/11/2007 10:36:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mczepp@... writes:

Tower 7 wasnt hit by a plane, yet fell in the same manner as 1 and 2

It collapsed because it was hit by debris when the first towers collapsed. A simple reading of the timeline and on site reports clearly indicate that.

Here's a link to a video showing the impact.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

September 12, 2007

In a message dated 9/11/2007 10:36:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mczepp@... writes:

Tower 7 wasnt hit by a plane, yet fell in the same manner as 1 and 2

It collapsed because it was hit by debris when the first towers collapsed. A simple reading of the timeline and on site reports clearly indicate that.

Here's a link to a video showing the impact.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

September 12, 2007

Tower 7 wasnt hit by a plane, yet fell in the same manner as 1 and 2

Re: Re: 9/11 Truth?

In a message dated 9/11/2007 2:43:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, no_reply@group s.com writes:

There was also a rumor going around that most Jews had left the building or failed to show up for work on 911, which spurred on the idea that maybe Israel caused this to provoke the US to attack somewhere int he middle east or at least take Israel's side against them.

I've heard that, but it doesn't make much sense. The US is already Israel's strongest ally in the world, even though they have pulled dirty tricks on us (USS Liberty, selling our military technology, etc.). Trying some kind of conspiracy like that would only backfire on them and hurt them very badly.

The plane was not hitting a solid object like a mountain. It was hitting an object built more like a screen, and went through the trade center like a potato goes through a slicer to make french fries. The wings contain the fuel, and the wings partially folded into the plane upon impact, which was why they did not simply sheer through part of the tower. The fuel is kept in the wings, and the fuel ignighted on impact, spilling across the floors as the jet cut through them. Many of the support posts inside the tower were severed on impact. Others held. Jet fuel, which is more flamable than the gasoline we put in out cars, burns very hot. These high temperatures weekened the remaining support pillars causing them to be unable to support the heavy weight of the towers above. The

towers then collapsed exactly the way they would under these circumstances. If you made a tower out of a stack of cards and removed one card from the bottom, the tower would tip to one side and collapse. But if you removed a number of cards across one of the middle sections, the tower would collapse downward.

Very good points here, especially about the building being like a screen.

Many of the Tower supports were cut, but they could have survived that alone. The Towers were designed to take a strike from an aircraft, though the ones that hit them were larger than planned for. However, there was enough structure remaining in the outer skin and the inner column to have supported the Towers at least much longer than they did.

Fire was the real killer. Over time, the fires weakened the steel enough that it lost its integrity and failed. Bear in mind how much weight those columns carried. All those floors above aren't merely static, but are potential energy. Each piece in a building contains potential energy. That energy is imparted by lifting it into position, representing the energy needed to overcome gravity and get that piece where you want it. As long as the building is strong, that force is balanced by the strength of the building. If that strength is violated, then all that potential energy surrenders to gravity and is released.

Fireproofing is another factor. Up to about the 64th floor, asbestos insulation was used on the columns. After about that point, it was discontinued. This was because of anti-asbestos litigation and fears that were cropping up at the time. While it probably would not have prevented the collapse, asbestos would have delayed it a little longer. Most likely, however, the insulation that was used was torn away from some columns by the impact and flying debris. Many columns would still have been protected though, and a higher quality insulation could have given some more time before the collapse.

Asuming for a moment that someone simply detonated some dynamite or C4 explosive and brough the towers down, one thing blows your story as to the conspiracy theory...50,000 people work in those towers and an unusual number of people called in sik that day. The majority of those that DID show evacuated themselves before the towers fell. Can we reasonably expect that of those 50,000 who did not show up for work or who escaped the fall of the towers that -if they were in on it- they would ALL hold their tongues?

A factor here is that the attacks came before the buildings were full. That accounts a lot for the lower death toll. Had the attacks come even an hour later, there would have been many more people in them.

From Day 1 of the Roswell incident you had people within the nearby airbase spilling the beans about supposed aliens landing. I find it hard to believe that anyone who was in on a plot to bring the trade center down could stay quiet so long without their guilt provoking them to reveal everything. Aside from that, how many times do we hear of murder investigations where someone comes forward claiming to be the killer but who turns out to be some mentally ill person trying to gain recognition? Yet notone such person has come forward truthfully or falsely "admitting" involvement in the plot. Anyone could go to the media or even a tabloid and make such an assertion before they could be "gotten to" by the government. Yet no one has.

Good points.

But let's say there WAS a plot. What was the objective? If it was an attempt to keep the Republicans in office, that certainly backfired. If it was so that we could mess around in the Middle East, that seems unlikely. We didn't need to blow up anything before we invaded Grenada or Panama. If it's to take away our civil liberties, that seems counterproductive seeing as we were a happier, more cooperative and manageable society BEFORE 911 and a resentful society SINCE 911 now that some of our liberties have been removed.

If the government tried a serious attempt against civil liberties, they would go for the guns first. All dictatorships disarm the people first, to prevent effective resistance. We still have ours, though for how much longer is another matter. The US government would also have a problem because it is unlikely that enough soldiers would turn their weapons on US citizens. They might help in suppressing riots, but it is unlikely that they would do the things a dictatorship would require. I would be far more worried about some kind of civilian group that owed its allegiance to a political party rather than the Constitution, like Hitler's SA. However, I can see such "Civic Action Groups" being developed and used to brutalize civilians while the military was kept otherwise occupied and unable to interfere.

Some liberties have been lost, but only because of Political Correctness. Because of PC, we can't name our enemy or take direct action against them. Instead, we have these silly things like grandmothers and children pulled out for random searches, while Imams who make a great public show of praying in the airport and being very suspicious on the plane sue when called on it.

It just does not make any sense to my Aspie mind.I do agree, however, that Bush and Cheney have used this incident as a blank check to do whatever they want to re-arrange the middle east.

This is true. Afghanistan made sense because that was where our enemy was. However, we botched it by going in weak and with a lack of ruthlessness that would have impressed our enemies. Had we gone in a bit later with more strength and with a freer use of firepower, we would have sent a message not to mess with us again. It also would have helped to place a higher bounty on Bin Laudin and others. We did pay out the bounties we placed that were fulfilled, so this might have worked with Bin Laudin too.

TomAdministrator

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Travel.

September 12, 2007

Even Castro has a conspiracy theory...

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/6260813.html

Cuban leader claims U.S. misled world over Sept. 11 attacks

11:24, September 12, 2007

Cuban leader Fidel Castro claimed Tuesday the U.S. government had

misinformed the world about the Sept. 11 attacks on the United

States six years ago.

Castro said in an article read by a Cuban television anchor that

there was " deliberate misinformation " about the attacks.

He said the Pentagon was struck by a rocket, not a plane, because

only a projectile could have caused the geometrically round hole in

the building.

" We were fooled like everyone else on the planet, " he said.

Castro last July handed power to Castro, his younger brother

and Cuba's defense minister, for surgery for intestinal bleeding. He

has not been seen in public since then, but writes regularly in the

country's official newspapers on current affairs.

Source: Xinhua

September 12, 2007

Even Castro has a conspiracy theory...

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/6260813.html

Cuban leader claims U.S. misled world over Sept. 11 attacks

11:24, September 12, 2007

Cuban leader Fidel Castro claimed Tuesday the U.S. government had

misinformed the world about the Sept. 11 attacks on the United

States six years ago.

Castro said in an article read by a Cuban television anchor that

there was " deliberate misinformation " about the attacks.

He said the Pentagon was struck by a rocket, not a plane, because

only a projectile could have caused the geometrically round hole in

the building.

" We were fooled like everyone else on the planet, " he said.

Castro last July handed power to Castro, his younger brother

and Cuba's defense minister, for surgery for intestinal bleeding. He

has not been seen in public since then, but writes regularly in the

country's official newspapers on current affairs.

Source: Xinhua

September 12, 2007

In a message dated 9/12/2007 10:06:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mczepp@... writes:

So your saying that tower 7 suffered a complete structural failure because one side was hit by falling debris?? Why did the entire building fall peferctly evenly. If one side was damaged would'nt it have collapsed on that side?? Why would the central pillors all collapse at the same time. I think you are suffering from denial. Watch the videos of tower 7 collapsing, does one side of the building fall first?? It was clearly brought down by controlled demolition.

Pay to attention to the video. Don't you see that huge pile of debris coming down, thousands of tons of it? You think that is going to hit like a snowflake? Denial? I think you're smelling like a troll looking to cause trouble.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

September 12, 2007

In a message dated 9/12/2007 10:06:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mczepp@... writes:

So your saying that tower 7 suffered a complete structural failure because one side was hit by falling debris?? Why did the entire building fall peferctly evenly. If one side was damaged would'nt it have collapsed on that side?? Why would the central pillors all collapse at the same time. I think you are suffering from denial. Watch the videos of tower 7 collapsing, does one side of the building fall first?? It was clearly brought down by controlled demolition.

Pay to attention to the video. Don't you see that huge pile of debris coming down, thousands of tons of it? You think that is going to hit like a snowflake? Denial? I think you're smelling like a troll looking to cause trouble.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

September 12, 2007

So your saying that tower 7 suffered a complete structural failure because one side was hit by falling debris?? Why did the entire building fall peferctly evenly. If one side was damaged would'nt it have collapsed on that side?? Why would the central pillors all collapse at the same time. I think you are suffering from denial. Watch the videos of tower 7 collapsing, does one side of the building fall first?? It was clearly brought down by controlled demolition.

Re: Re: 9/11 Truth?

In a message dated 9/11/2007 10:36:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, mczepp (DOT) com writes:

Tower 7 wasnt hit by a plane, yet fell in the same manner as 1 and 2

It collapsed because it was hit by debris when the first towers collapsed. A simple reading of the timeline and on site reports clearly indicate that.

Here's a link to a video showing the impact.

http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=h_JHzuVywQ8

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join 's user panel and lay it on us.

September 12, 2007

In a message dated 9/12/2007 3:50:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, pfreeman@... writes:

Also remember, Germany blew up it's own chancellory and blamed it on forigners so they could start WWII.

The Reichstag was not blown up, it was burned. They did not blame foreigners, but the Communists within Germany. It was not the excuse for going to war, but it was used to eliminate domestic political opposition. The war came years later.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

September 12, 2007

In a message dated 9/12/2007 3:50:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, pfreeman@... writes:

Also remember, Germany blew up it's own chancellory and blamed it on forigners so they could start WWII.

The Reichstag was not blown up, it was burned. They did not blame foreigners, but the Communists within Germany. It was not the excuse for going to war, but it was used to eliminate domestic political opposition. The war came years later.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

September 12, 2007

In a message dated 9/12/2007 4:54:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, pfreeman@... writes:

Wow, if that is all you can pick apart from my message, I must have done pretty good! Burned/Bombed...Destroyed! Then blamed someone else. Same idea.

Actually, it was the only part I deemed worthy of a response. The majority was conspiracy theory hokum, but the history matter is fact.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

September 12, 2007

In a message dated 9/12/2007 4:54:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, pfreeman@... writes:

Wow, if that is all you can pick apart from my message, I must have done pretty good! Burned/Bombed...Destroyed! Then blamed someone else. Same idea.

Actually, it was the only part I deemed worthy of a response. The majority was conspiracy theory hokum, but the history matter is fact.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

September 12, 2007

Most buildings do collapse straight down whether they collapse

naturally or with demolition charges. Take a look at the videos of

earthquake aftermath and you will see buildings that they look like

compressed sandwiches. The only time you see buildings fall like a

tree is if the facade falls off or if something pushes it from one

side, like a mudslide for example.

The debris that hit building seven was sufficient to rattle the

entire structure like a cage even though it only hit part of the

building. The concrete and other material on the inside of the

building was rattled loose from this cage and all that suspended

potential energy became kinetic, causing the collapse.

Elementary engineering and elementary physics combined.

Aside from that,

To wire building 7 with enough explosives to destroy it (and this

holds true for the trade towers) could hardly be done without people

seeing what they were doing.

But let's say the buildings were indeed wired, and that they were

brought down by explosives.

1) There was so many investigative teams there during and after the

episode testing for explosives and asbestos and toxins. No explosive

residue was detected. This would mean that the city, county, state,

and federal governments as well as paid independent contractors

hired by these agencies and by the media had to make a coordinated

effort to cover up the fact that explosives were used. I rather

doubt anything could escape the scruitiny of the mdia, and it would

be hard to beleive that the media would participate in the

conspiracy given that they themselves were getting targeted by

anthrax shortly after 911.

2) There was always the risk that not all the explosive would have

detonated, and so during clean up, there could have been accidental

explosions. Yet there were none.

3) And while the debris smoldered for quite a few weeks after the

Trade Centers came down, there were no additional explosions.

4) If there was a conspiracy, no one has come forward out of guilt,

and considering how many people had to be involved in bringing all

this together, it is doubtful anyone could stay mym this long.

5) Al Quida continues to trumpet the fact that they brought down the

towers and this has incited much of the Arab world against us. Why

would we want to blow up our own buildings so that gas prices can go

up and the Arabs can finally gain enough courage to try an attack us

en-masse?

Tom

Administrator

" So your saying that tower 7 suffered a complete structural failure

because one side was hit by falling debris?? Why did the entire

building fall peferctly evenly. If one side was damaged would'nt it

have collapsed on that side?? Why would the central pillors all

collapse at the same time. I think you are suffering from denial.

Watch the videos of tower 7 collapsing, does one side of the

building fall first?? It was clearly brought down by controlled

demolition. "

September 12, 2007