Re: Aeronautical Engineer says Official 9/11 Story Not Possible

[Matt Wright]

TRUTH wrote:
> In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable
> difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into
> a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles
> away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over
> 500 MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.

Sir,

I can see by your postings that you're passionate about this, so I
don't want to be all dismissive and patronizing like some others have
been. Instead, let's just talk about it for a little.

It's obvious that you have been deeply affected by 9/11 and that you
find yourself unable to accept that we were simply caught unawares by a
cunning foe, as we were in Pearl Harbor. Instead you blame the
government. Not only do you blame them, you attribute the whole event
to them. It was their doing. A massive conspiracy with an equally
massive coverup.

Why would terrorists go to all that trouble, anyway? In the end they
only took down a couple of buildings and 3,000 civilians. I say "only"
3,000 not to be cruel, every one matters, but given their efforts over
the past two decades, it was hardly worth the cost. The puppet masters
are actually smart - they would have anticipated the counter-attack and
the loss of Afghanistan. They knew the hawks in the White House
wouldn't just let it go. It was a counter-productive thing to do. So
why do it?

As a country we consantly project our power and intrude in other
people's business with abandon. What can they do to the last, great
superpower? Terrorism is the only recourse the "little guy" has againt
the "big guy". You can't go to war against a vastly superior force.
The official story is that 9/11 was a demonstration. A demonstration
that we are not invincible. It was an effetive one.

We in the West have a fast-food culture. We want everything to be
immediate. We'll trash the "5-minute Abs" tape and buy the "3-minute
Abs" DVD. We want an immediate response to a stimulus. That's not the
way of the Eastern nations. They are, architypically, more long-view.
They can wage war over 100 years, slowly. No rush. Lay low. Make the
enemy bankrupt themselves by forcing them into a protracted engagement.
One stealthy terrorist can tie up an army.

9/11 has bolstered the spirits of the terrorists. It's an incredible
PR win. We're piling billions into Iraq and Afghanistan and losing our
freedoms over here. We've gone from "we'll never rest until Bin Laden
is caught or killed" to "well, he's not that important anyway". We're
losing troops daily in Iraq. Slowly. Painfully. Constantly. While
the country decends into civil war.

Frankly, we're losing. And we're losing because:
+ You can't kill an enemy you can't see.
+ New terrorists are being recruited faster than we can kill them.

So although they took a short-term loss (Afghanistan), they're winning
long-term.


So, why would the government orchestrate the attacks? To give them a
reason to go into Iraq? To given them a reason to massively increase
military spending? Perhaps one or both of those. What would it take
to achieve it? How many people were involved? How many branches of
government? Were the plane passengers put on trains and sent into the
forest for execution like some Nazi war story? Were the planes flown
to secret airforce bases for storage? Does that mean air traffic
controllers were involved? Did no one see the planes land? How many
construction workers did it take to wire the WTC with demolition
charges? Did no one notice the miles of cable and holes in the walls?

I tend to believe that two people can keep a secret only if one of them
is dead, and a government conspiracy of this scale probably covers 100s
or 1000s of different people. All of whom have to buy-off on the
execution of 3000 civilians.

Do we live in that country?


On your points, you use the word "fact" a lot, but I think you use it
incorrectly. It is a "fact" that the WTC towers fell. It is a "fact"
that planes flew into them. What happened next is perhaps open to
interpretation by experts and non-experts.

Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta was both
commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless non-pilot".
Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions of the pilots, but
you don't know how long they trained away from the flight school. You
don't know how much "book time" they had studying avionics. The attack
had years of planning behind it. I guess they could have spent that
time playing pinball... but maybe instead they were studying. That
something is hard does not make it impossible.

What about general airline hijacking policy. Before 9/11 wasn't there
a policy of compliance? Do what the hijackers want and the FBI will
get them on the ground. Are you sure the pilots didn't navigate to the
area before the terrorists took over? On the morning of 9/11, putting
a knife to the throat of a flight attendent immediately got you the
captain's attention. He may be ex-air force but he's not going to lose
a member of his crew. He's going to do exactly what you say. "Fly me
to New York". "Yes sir. Right away sir". I suspect the terrorists
said they would land somewhere and make their demands. By the time the
truth was known, it would be too late.


Still, all that said no one can difinitively say what happened on
board. All we can do is choose to believe a story. One story
presented by experts from one camp, and an alternative view from
another camp. Like JFK and faked moon landings, people believe what
they want to believe and for every argument there is a
counter-argument. The strength of each is in the eye of the beholder.

So, wrapping up...

I can take the step of saying, whilst I choose not to believe you, your
scenario is possible. I find it unlikely, but it is possible that the
government, envious of Middle Eastern oil and eager to boost military
budgets. formulated a "shock and awe" campaign on the American people
and the world.

The question is, can YOU take a reciprocal step? Can you concede that,
whilst it's not something you believe, there is a chance that following
years of intrusive foreign policy, a terrorist mastermind carefully
planned and executed a suicide campaign against the WTC and Pentagon?
That we were all caught unawares and that the Bush was the one in shock
as he read "My Pet Goat" to the kids in the classroom?


If you can't accept the possibility that your view is in error, then
you're not a clear, reasoned thinker. You're a preacher, preaching
your faith. Which is fine, too.. I guess.

Matt.

[khobar]

"Matt Wright" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> TRUTH wrote:
> > In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable
> > difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner
into
> > a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles
> > away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over
> > 500 MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.
>
> Sir,
>
> I can see by your postings that you're passionate about this, so I
> don't want to be all dismissive and patronizing like some others have
> been. Instead, let's just talk about it for a little.
..
..
..
>
> If you can't accept the possibility that your view is in error, then
> you're not a clear, reasoned thinker. You're a preacher, preaching
> your faith. Which is fine, too.. I guess.

He's a troll, nothing more, as his posts clearly demonstrate.

Paul Nixon

[TRUTH]

"Matt Wright" > wrote in
oups.com:

>
> Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta was
> both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless non-pilot".
> Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions of the pilots, but
> you don't know how long they trained away from the flight school. You
> don't know how much "book time" they had studying avionics. The
> attack had years of planning behind it. I guess they could have spent
> that time playing pinball... but maybe instead they were studying.
> That something is hard does not make it impossible.
>

>
> Matt.



I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was instrument
trained does not explain the others, in particular flight 77 and the
Pentagon.


Do you consider the BBC a reputable news source?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm



See here for others:
http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

[Pooh Bear]

TRUTH wrote:

> "Matt Wright" > wrote in
> oups.com:
>
> > Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta was
> > both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless non-pilot".
> > Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions of the pilots, but
> > you don't know how long they trained away from the flight school. You
> > don't know how much "book time" they had studying avionics. The
> > attack had years of planning behind it. I guess they could have spent
> > that time playing pinball... but maybe instead they were studying.
> > That something is hard does not make it impossible.
>
> > Matt.
>
> I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was instrument
> trained does not explain the others

How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there was no
need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear skies does
not require an instrument rating.

Graham

[TRUTH]

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> "Matt Wright" > wrote in
>> oups.com:
>>
>> > Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta was
>> > both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless
>> > non-pilot". Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions of
>> > the pilots, but you don't know how long they trained away from the
>> > flight school. You don't know how much "book time" they had
>> > studying avionics. The attack had years of planning behind it. I
>> > guess they could have spent that time playing pinball... but maybe
>> > instead they were studying. That something is hard does not make it
>> > impossible.
>>
>> > Matt.
>>
>> I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was
>> instrument trained does not explain the others
>
> How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there was
> no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
> skies does not require an instrument rating.
>
> Graham
>
>



At 30,000 feet it does

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in news:0DxLf.36854$F_3.15100
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Still, showing one of them was instrument
>> trained does not explain the others, in particular flight 77 and the
>> Pentagon.
>
> Since you have already indicated that NONE of them were capable of
> flying the plane, doesn't evidence for one of them debunk this thought?
> Or.. must we gather evidence that all of them were trained in order to
> debunk you NONE theory?
>



No it does not. I don't know every single fact about 9/11, and neither do
you. I prove what I know, and you prove what you know. Either side can make
errors.

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in news:0DxLf.36854$F_3.15100
@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Still, showing one of them was instrument
>> trained does not explain the others, in particular flight 77 and the
>> Pentagon.
>
> Since you have already indicated that NONE of them were capable of
> flying the plane, doesn't evidence for one of them debunk this thought?
> Or.. must we gather evidence that all of them were trained in order to
> debunk you NONE theory?
>


also , that's a red herring arugment. It has nothing to do with the facts
that do exist, such as the failed-cessna pilot flying a 757 at 400MPH
crashing leaving no physical evidence whatsoever. And on top of that,
somehow causing the atoms in the air to "form" a piece of a military
aircraft.

[Pooh Bear]

TRUTH wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> "Matt Wright" > wrote in
> >> oups.com:
> >>
> >> > Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta was
> >> > both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless
> >> > non-pilot". Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions of
> >> > the pilots, but you don't know how long they trained away from the
> >> > flight school. You don't know how much "book time" they had
> >> > studying avionics. The attack had years of planning behind it. I
> >> > guess they could have spent that time playing pinball... but maybe
> >> > instead they were studying. That something is hard does not make it
> >> > impossible.
> >>
> >> > Matt.
> >>
> >> I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was
> >> instrument trained does not explain the others
> >
> > How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there was
> > no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
> > skies does not require an instrument rating.
> >
> > Graham
> >
> >
>
> At 30,000 feet it does

INCORRECT !

FAA regulations require the licensed crew to use instrument flying
techniques ( for obvious reasons ).

That doesn't mean that it's impossible to fly VFR ( visual flight rules ) -
it just means you're breaking the law. Do you think the hijackers even cared
about that ?

If you can see the horizon / ground ( at any height ) you don't need to fly
instruments ( other than to obey regulations ).

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

TRUTH wrote:

> I prove what I know, and you prove what you know.

You reckon this is a 'my willie is bigger than your willie' contest ?

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

TRUTH wrote:

> also , that's a red herring arugment. It has nothing to do with the facts
> that do exist, such as the failed-cessna pilot flying a 757 at
> 400MPH.......

Do you have any evidence that whoever was supposed to be flying that 757 was
indeed a 'failed Cessna pilot' or is it mere conjecture on your part ?

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

mrtravel wrote:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
> >>
> >>How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there was
> >>no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
> >>skies does not require an instrument rating.
> >>
> >>Graham
>
> > At 30,000 feet it does
>
> But they went lower, didn't they?

Irrelevant. They didn't care about the FAA rules.

> At 30000 feet, do you think it would be possible to figure out where
> Manhattan is, on a clear day? If you spend some time looking at maps, it
> wouldn't be that difficult.

Anyone can fly a jet by visual references alone when the weather's fine.

Graham

[TRUTH]

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > TRUTH wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Matt Wright" > wrote in
>> >> oups.com:
>> >>
>> >> > Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta
>> >> > was both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless
>> >> > non-pilot". Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions
>> >> > of the pilots, but you don't know how long they trained away
>> >> > from the flight school. You don't know how much "book time"
>> >> > they had studying avionics. The attack had years of planning
>> >> > behind it. I guess they could have spent that time playing
>> >> > pinball... but maybe instead they were studying. That something
>> >> > is hard does not make it impossible.
>> >>
>> >> > Matt.
>> >>
>> >> I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was
>> >> instrument trained does not explain the others
>> >
>> > How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
>> > was no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
>> > clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
>> >
>> > Graham
>> >
>> >
>>
>> At 30,000 feet it does
>
> INCORRECT !
>
> FAA regulations require the licensed crew to use instrument flying
> techniques ( for obvious reasons ).
>
> That doesn't mean that it's impossible to fly VFR ( visual flight
> rules ) - it just means you're breaking the law. Do you think the
> hijackers even cared about that ?
>
> If you can see the horizon / ground ( at any height ) you don't need
> to fly instruments ( other than to obey regulations ).
>
> Graham
>
>
>
>



Okay, I'll admit you "might" know about this stuff, although I would give
an Aeronautical Engineer's opinion a little more weight. I am not an
expert in every aspect of 9/11. And I admit it. Stange how others do not
do the same

[TRUTH]

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> I prove what I know, and you prove what you know.
>
> You reckon this is a 'my willie is bigger than your willie' contest ?
>
> Graham
>
>

I hope not!!

[TRUTH]

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> also , that's a red herring arugment. It has nothing to do with the
>> facts that do exist, such as the failed-cessna pilot flying a 757 at
>> 400MPH.......
>
> Do you have any evidence that whoever was supposed to be flying that
> 757 was indeed a 'failed Cessna pilot' or is it mere conjecture on
> your part ?
>
> Graham
>
>


I don't have it from mainstream media sources. But people (including Dr
Jones) has said it. If it was not true, it would have defininitely been
exposed by someone. If it's NOT true, maybe you can research it and prove
Jones and others wrong! If you CAN do that, it would be good. The Truth
movement wants to be based, simply, on truth.

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in
. net:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> mrtravel > wrote in news:0DxLf.36854$F_3.15100
>> @newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
>>
>>
>>>TRUTH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Still, showing one of them was instrument
>>>>trained does not explain the others, in particular flight 77 and the
>>>>Pentagon.
>>>
>>>Since you have already indicated that NONE of them were capable of
>>>flying the plane, doesn't evidence for one of them debunk this
>>>thought? Or.. must we gather evidence that all of them were trained
>>>in order to debunk you NONE theory?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No it does not. I don't know every single fact about 9/11, and
>> neither do you. I prove what I know, and you prove what you know.
>> Either side can make errors.
>
> A statement that NONE of the hijackers could crash the planes into
> buildings is a main point in your argument that they didn't do it.
> Now, if the highjackers had this training, wouldn't that debunk this
> argument. Since this is a MAJOR point in your "proof" that it was the
> government, it is important that this part of the story be correct.
>



Only if you are relying on little ol me to be 100% correct in everything.
I cannot be, so I hope others would understand that and look at the
information for themselves without taking everything I say literally. But
I do understand your point

[Pooh Bear]

TRUTH wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > TRUTH wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Matt Wright" > wrote in
> >> >> oups.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta
> >> >> > was both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless
> >> >> > non-pilot". Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions
> >> >> > of the pilots, but you don't know how long they trained away
> >> >> > from the flight school. You don't know how much "book time"
> >> >> > they had studying avionics. The attack had years of planning
> >> >> > behind it. I guess they could have spent that time playing
> >> >> > pinball... but maybe instead they were studying. That something
> >> >> > is hard does not make it impossible.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Matt.
> >> >>
> >> >> I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was
> >> >> instrument trained does not explain the others
> >> >
> >> > How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
> >> > was no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
> >> > clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
> >> >
> >> > Graham
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> At 30,000 feet it does
> >
> > INCORRECT !
> >
> > FAA regulations require the licensed crew to use instrument flying
> > techniques ( for obvious reasons ).
> >
> > That doesn't mean that it's impossible to fly VFR ( visual flight
> > rules ) - it just means you're breaking the law. Do you think the
> > hijackers even cared about that ?
> >
> > If you can see the horizon / ground ( at any height ) you don't need
> > to fly instruments ( other than to obey regulations ).
> >
> > Graham
>
> Okay, I'll admit you "might" know about this stuff,

Thank you ! Trust me I do !

> although I would give
> an Aeronautical Engineer's opinion a little more weight. I am not an
> expert in every aspect of 9/11. And I admit it. Stange how others do not
> do the same

The issue of whether or not the hijackers were instrument rated is of zero
consequence in the context of 9/11 since the weather was VFR ( visual flight
rules ).

Commercial pilots often have to fly in rather poorer weather where you may
not be able to see the ground, horizon, or even much in front of your nose.
That's why they have instrument ratings. The idea behind flying 'on
instruments' is about when you can't see where you're going. The reaon for
the FAA rules about mandatory use of 'IFR' ( instrument flight rules )
flight is essentially precautionary.

Graham

[TRUTH]

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> mrtravel wrote:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >>How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
was
>> >>no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
>> >>skies does not require an instrument rating.
>> >>
>> >>Graham
>>
>> > At 30,000 feet it does
>>
>> But they went lower, didn't they?
>
> Irrelevant. They didn't care about the FAA rules.
>
>> At 30000 feet, do you think it would be possible to figure out where
>> Manhattan is, on a clear day? If you spend some time looking at maps,
it
>> wouldn't be that difficult.
>
> Anyone can fly a jet by visual references alone when the weather's
fine.
>
> Graham
>
>
>

Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West Virginia?

[TRUTH]

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > TRUTH wrote:
>> >
>> >> Pooh Bear > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> > TRUTH wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Matt Wright" > wrote in
>> >> >> oups.com:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed
>> >> >> > Atta was both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a
>> >> >> > "clueless non-pilot". Flight instructors maybe had poor
>> >> >> > overall opinions of the pilots, but you don't know how long
>> >> >> > they trained away from the flight school. You don't know how
>> >> >> > much "book time" they had studying avionics. The attack had
>> >> >> > years of planning behind it. I guess they could have spent
>> >> >> > that time playing pinball... but maybe instead they were
>> >> >> > studying. That something is hard does not make it impossible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Matt.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was
>> >> >> instrument trained does not explain the others
>> >> >
>> >> > How many times do you need to have it explained to you that
>> >> > there was no need for any of them to be instrument trained ?
>> >> > Flying in clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
>> >> >
>> >> > Graham
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> At 30,000 feet it does
>> >
>> > INCORRECT !
>> >
>> > FAA regulations require the licensed crew to use instrument flying
>> > techniques ( for obvious reasons ).
>> >
>> > That doesn't mean that it's impossible to fly VFR ( visual flight
>> > rules ) - it just means you're breaking the law. Do you think the
>> > hijackers even cared about that ?
>> >
>> > If you can see the horizon / ground ( at any height ) you don't
>> > need to fly instruments ( other than to obey regulations ).
>> >
>> > Graham
>>
>> Okay, I'll admit you "might" know about this stuff,
>
> Thank you ! Trust me I do !
>
>> although I would give
>> an Aeronautical Engineer's opinion a little more weight. I am not an
>> expert in every aspect of 9/11. And I admit it. Stange how others do
>> not do the same
>
> The issue of whether or not the hijackers were instrument rated is of
> zero consequence in the context of 9/11 since the weather was VFR (
> visual flight rules ).
>
> Commercial pilots often have to fly in rather poorer weather where you
> may not be able to see the ground, horizon, or even much in front of
> your nose. That's why they have instrument ratings. The idea behind
> flying 'on instruments' is about when you can't see where you're
> going. The reaon for the FAA rules about mandatory use of 'IFR' (
> instrument flight rules ) flight is essentially precautionary.
>
> Graham
>
>
>



Do you know that this, in fact, is applicable for 757/767s ??

[Pooh Bear]

TRUTH wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> also , that's a red herring arugment. It has nothing to do with the
> >> facts that do exist, such as the failed-cessna pilot flying a 757 at
> >> 400MPH.......
> >
> > Do you have any evidence that whoever was supposed to be flying that
> > 757 was indeed a 'failed Cessna pilot' or is it mere conjecture on
> > your part ?
> >
> > Graham
>
>
> I don't have it from mainstream media sources. But people (including Dr
> Jones) has said it.

Dr Jones looks rather lame in view of his writing a paper, the subject of
which he isn't qualifed in !

> If it was not true, it would have defininitely been
> exposed by someone. If it's NOT true, maybe you can research it and prove
> Jones and others wrong! If you CAN do that, it would be good. The Truth
> movement wants to be based, simply, on truth.

Well..... I heard many reports that those hijackers who trained at flight
school on heavy jets weren't considered to be 'very good pilots' but I've
never come across the suggestion that any of them had failed a Cessna flight
test.

In fact, even to get onto an 'advanced' i.e. jet training course *requires* a
full private flying licence ! The flight schools simply won't accept 'failed
Cessna pilots'.

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

TRUTH wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> > mrtravel wrote:
> >
> >> TRUTH wrote:
> >>
> >> >>How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
> was
> >> >>no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
> >> >>skies does not require an instrument rating.
> >> >>
> >> >>Graham
> >>
> >> > At 30,000 feet it does
> >>
> >> But they went lower, didn't they?
> >
> > Irrelevant. They didn't care about the FAA rules.
> >
> >> At 30000 feet, do you think it would be possible to figure out where
> >> Manhattan is, on a clear day? If you spend some time looking at maps,
> it
> >> wouldn't be that difficult.
> >
> > Anyone can fly a jet by visual references alone when the weather's
> fine.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West Virginia?

A few 'light fluffy clouds' such as you might encounter on a nice day don't
amount to 'IFR'.

'IFR' is when you seriously can't see where you're going. Training is done
with 'blinds' to stop the trainee pilot seeing out the windscreen.

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

TRUTH wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> > The issue of whether or not the hijackers were instrument rated is of
> > zero consequence in the context of 9/11 since the weather was VFR (
> > visual flight rules ).
> >
> > Commercial pilots often have to fly in rather poorer weather where you
> > may not be able to see the ground, horizon, or even much in front of
> > your nose. That's why they have instrument ratings. The idea behind
> > flying 'on instruments' is about when you can't see where you're
> > going. The reaon for the FAA rules about mandatory use of 'IFR' (
> > instrument flight rules ) flight is essentially precautionary.
> >
> > Graham
>
> Do you know that this, in fact, is applicable for 757/767s ??

It applies to all major airline operations.

If you want the details see the FAA regs.

Graham

[Thomas Borchert]

Truth,

> > How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there was
> > no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
> > skies does not require an instrument rating.
> >
> > Graham
> >
> >
>
>
>
> At 30,000 feet it does
>

No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to be
legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Truth,

Man, there is one thing I envy you for: the amount of TIME you must
have at your disposal. A pity you waste it liek this, though.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:

<snip>
>
> FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out of
> all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.
>
Your persistent lying even after being told the correct definition of
"squib" adds to your lack of credibility.

Squib
Pronunciation: 'skwib'
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown

1 a : a short humorous or satiric writing or speech b : a short news
item; especially : FILLER
2 a : a small firecracker b : a broken firecracker in which the powder
burns with a fizz
3 : a small electric or pyrotechnic device used to ignite a charge

Source: Merriam-Webster

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

Peter Twydell wrote:
> In message <eoCLf.26211$Ug4.11645@dukeread12>, Dan > writes
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>> FACT: There were small puffs of smoke (known as squibs) coming out of
>>> all three buildings, a sign of controlled demolitions.
>>>
>> Your persistent lying even after being told the correct definition of
>> "squib" adds to your lack of credibility.
>>
>> Squib
>> Pronunciation: 'skwib'
>> Function: noun
>> Etymology: origin unknown
>>
>> 1 a : a short humorous or satiric writing or speech b : a short news
>> item; especially : FILLER
>> 2 a : a small firecracker b : a broken firecracker in which the powder
>> burns with a fizz
>> 3 : a small electric or pyrotechnic device used to ignite a charge
>>
>> Source: Merriam-Webster
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> I was quite amused some years ago when I read that the world's leading
> manufacturer of suppositories was called Sqibb. Adds a whole new
> dimension to 'going with a bang'.
>
> 'TRUTH' wouldn't be able to use any of their products because he spends
> too much time talking out of where they're supposed to be inserted.

Squibb also made toothpaste. This could explain his shooting his
mouth off <g>

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> > Flying in clear
> > skies does not require an instrument rating.
>
> At 30,000 feet it does

Only if you're worried about being fined or having your license taken
away.

I have plenty of photos taken from airplanes that show enough ground
detail (to the point where you can recognize specific highway
interchanges and landmarks). You can easily see Manhattan Island from
that height (I recognized it from a plane en route to Boston from Miami
once, from 30,000+ feet and fifteen or more miles horizontal separation,
with less-than-perfect weather conditions).

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> > Commercial pilots often have to fly in rather poorer weather where you
> > may not be able to see the ground, horizon, or even much in front of
> > your nose. That's why they have instrument ratings. The idea behind
> > flying 'on instruments' is about when you can't see where you're
> > going. The reaon for the FAA rules about mandatory use of 'IFR' (
> > instrument flight rules ) flight is essentially precautionary.
>
> Do you know that this, in fact, is applicable for 757/767s ??

You might want to consider the fact that people have been flying planes
at 30,000+ feet for several decades now, and many of them didn't have
anything lie that we'd consider IFR equipment.

WWII bomber pilots routinely flew at 30-33,000 feet, navigating by
landmarks.

[Newps]

TRUTH wrote:
Flying in clear
>>skies does not require an instrument rating.

>
>
> At 30,000 feet it does

Why? What does altitude have to do with it?

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Newps wrote:
>>> Flying in clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
>>
>> At 30,000 feet it does
>
> Why? What does altitude have to do with it?


Airspace between 18,000 feet MSL and Flight Level 600 is designated Class A
airspace and all operations there must be conducted under IFR.

http://www.asy.faa.gov/safety_products/airspaceclass.htm




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Bert Hyman]

(Mortimer Schnerd, RN) wrote in
m:

> Newps wrote:
>>>> Flying in clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
>>>
>>> At 30,000 feet it does
>>
>> Why? What does altitude have to do with it?
>
>
> Airspace between 18,000 feet MSL and Flight Level 600 is designated
> Class A airspace and all operations there must be conducted under
> IFR.

This of course assumes that the pilot is concerned with obeying the
rules.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > TRUTH wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Matt Wright" > wrote in
> >> >> oups.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta
> >> >> > was both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless
> >> >> > non-pilot". Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions
> >> >> > of the pilots, but you don't know how long they trained away
> >> >> > from the flight school. You don't know how much "book time"
> >> >> > they had studying avionics. The attack had years of planning
> >> >> > behind it. I guess they could have spent that time playing
> >> >> > pinball... but maybe instead they were studying. That something
> >> >> > is hard does not make it impossible.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Matt.
> >> >>
> >> >> I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was
> >> >> instrument trained does not explain the others
> >> >
> >> > How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
> >> > was no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
> >> > clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
> >> >
> >> > Graham
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> At 30,000 feet it does
> >
> > INCORRECT !
> >
> > FAA regulations require the licensed crew to use instrument flying
> > techniques ( for obvious reasons ).
> >
> > That doesn't mean that it's impossible to fly VFR ( visual flight
> > rules ) - it just means you're breaking the law. Do you think the
> > hijackers even cared about that ?
> >
> > If you can see the horizon / ground ( at any height ) you don't need
> > to fly instruments ( other than to obey regulations ).
> >
> > Graham


> Okay, I'll admit you "might" know about this stuff, although I would give
> an Aeronautical Engineer's opinion a little more weight. I am not an
> expert in every aspect of 9/11. And I admit it. Stange how others do not
> do the same

Look, dimbulb: THIS aeronautical engineer (with 40 years experience in
field, BTW) and pilot (of 45 year experience) says that your source
doesn't know what he is talking about; furthermore, it is irrelevant
whether or not he is an "aeronautical engineer".

I have worked with a whole spectrum of aero engineers -- their
aeronautical knowledge has ranged from superior to abysmal -- your guy
falls into the latter category.

Your posting and the answers you have received fall into the category
of, "If you aren't going to like the answer, don't ask the question."
You have asked the question in an aviation newsgroup and gotten a
unanimous answer: you are full of ****!

[Newps]

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>>>> Flying in clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
>>>
>>>At 30,000 feet it does
>>
>>Why? What does altitude have to do with it?
>
>
>
> Airspace between 18,000 feet MSL and Flight Level 600 is designated Class A
> airspace and all operations there must be conducted under IFR.

I'm well aware of the rules, that was not the point of the question.

[The Whole Truth]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:18:54 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>WTC 7 was NOT hit by an airplane. Never before in world history has a steel
>framed hi rise totally collapsed from "fire". Not before 9/11, not after
>9/11. Never. Yet on 9/11, three building's supposedly collapsed from fire.
>The government destroyed the evidence before a proper investigation could
>be done. (Some people argue this, but they provide no proof. The
>destruction on evidence is factual.)

There is no way the government could have known in advance that WTC-7 would be
hit by large pieces of debris which set a fire which burned for half a day
before the collapse. What would have been the story if WTC-7 hadn't been hit,
that WTC-7 just magically self-destructed? None of the other still standing
buildings were found to have been wired for destruction.

Also, you have yet to offer even a remotely plausible theory as to why the
government would go through all the trouble of blowing up WTC-7 in the first
place. It's not like it was full of people, the general public had never even
heard of it and given all the attention to the 3,000 deaths and WTC-1 and 2;
most people have still never even heard of WTC-7.

Until you can offer a rational explanation as to why WTC-7 was chosen for
destruction and how the government knew in advance to wire it, you're going to
appear as nothing more than a lunatic off his meds. You want to convince us
that you've got a valid theory, you're going to need to do more than just say
"government bad, me right" over and over again.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:44:10 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > Commercial pilots often have to fly in rather poorer weather where you
>> > may not be able to see the ground, horizon, or even much in front of
>> > your nose. That's why they have instrument ratings. The idea behind
>> > flying 'on instruments' is about when you can't see where you're
>> > going. The reaon for the FAA rules about mandatory use of 'IFR' (
>> > instrument flight rules ) flight is essentially precautionary.
>>
>> Do you know that this, in fact, is applicable for 757/767s ??
>
>You might want to consider the fact that people have been flying planes
>at 30,000+ feet for several decades now, and many of them didn't have
>anything lie that we'd consider IFR equipment.
>
>WWII bomber pilots routinely flew at 30-33,000 feet, navigating by
>landmarks.

Or in the worst case, compass headings and time of travel adjusted by wind
speed. The weather in Germany isn't always good enough for seeing the ground
from 30k feet. :)

[Pooh Bear]

Johnny Bravo wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:44:10 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > TRUTH > wrote:
> >
> >> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > Commercial pilots often have to fly in rather poorer weather where you
> >> > may not be able to see the ground, horizon, or even much in front of
> >> > your nose. That's why they have instrument ratings. The idea behind
> >> > flying 'on instruments' is about when you can't see where you're
> >> > going. The reaon for the FAA rules about mandatory use of 'IFR' (
> >> > instrument flight rules ) flight is essentially precautionary.
> >>
> >> Do you know that this, in fact, is applicable for 757/767s ??
> >
> >You might want to consider the fact that people have been flying planes
> >at 30,000+ feet for several decades now, and many of them didn't have
> >anything lie that we'd consider IFR equipment.
> >
> >WWII bomber pilots routinely flew at 30-33,000 feet, navigating by
> >landmarks.
>
> Or in the worst case, compass headings and time of travel adjusted by wind
> speed. The weather in Germany isn't always good enough for seeing the ground
> from 30k feet. :)

Or indeed in the dark ! It's barely believable today that RAF navigators used
star sightings on early raids.

Graham

[Jim Logajan]

Pooh Bear > wrote:
> Johnny Bravo wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:44:10 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>> >WWII bomber pilots routinely flew at 30-33,000 feet, navigating by
>> >landmarks.
>>
>> Or in the worst case, compass headings and time of travel adjusted
>> by wind
>> speed. The weather in Germany isn't always good enough for seeing
>> the ground from 30k feet. :)
>
> Or indeed in the dark ! It's barely believable today that RAF
> navigators used star sightings on early raids.

Even prior to WWII, WWI Zeppelins flew to London in night raids using dead
reckoning and an extremely crude radio navigation system. The radio system
required German ground stations determine the direction the Zeppelin's
radio transmissions were coming from and had to radio back that information
to the airships who then did the triangulation. It was not only relatively
inaccurate, it clued the British in to the airship raids.

[george]

TRUTH wrote:
> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> >
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> "Matt Wright" > wrote in
> >> oups.com:
> >>
> >> > Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed Atta was
> >> > both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a "clueless
> >> > non-pilot". Flight instructors maybe had poor overall opinions of
> >> > the pilots, but you don't know how long they trained away from the
> >> > flight school. You don't know how much "book time" they had
> >> > studying avionics. The attack had years of planning behind it. I
> >> > guess they could have spent that time playing pinball... but maybe
> >> > instead they were studying. That something is hard does not make it
> >> > impossible.
> >>
> >> > Matt.
> >>
> >> I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was
> >> instrument trained does not explain the others
> >
> > How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there was
> > no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
> > skies does not require an instrument rating.
> >
> > Graham
> >
> >
>
>
>
> At 30,000 feet it does

In a word
Bull****.
World record for altitude in a sailplane is somewhere about 50,000 ft
no instrument rating required.

So once again you are wrong a position not unusual to you..
Read the FAR's

[[email protected]]

Amazing how THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE is being defended, tooth and nail.

However, the events of 911 DID HAPPEN and they happened only like they
did, and it does not depend HOW WE SEE THEM, our perception is at
fault, not history.

Reality is complicated and sometimes seems illogical, but there WAS A
DEFINITIVE sequence of events.

Now, every one of you wonderful human beings has a built-in LIE
DETECTOR. Your brain is MADE FOR it.

In evolution Home-Boy Sapiens has prevailed because of her/his
out-smarting.

Now that's exactly the job-description of secret-service
spook-murder-arseholes.

Knowing that, we have to be double-clever and suspect a CON JOB.

con job No 1:

the arab hijackers pulled it off in plain sight, and we Americans were
just sleeping.

con job No 2:

We clever Special Ops used remote control and needed arab patsies.

Now, I ask you.

Given that the US military and US private business elites IN FACT
creamed the taxpayer and got jobs worth gazillions ... who benefitted,
and

WHO DID 911???

Come on, your built-in Lie-detector has already registered the
deceit... the needle of your sensors has already wiggled at the thought
that 9/11 was an inside job.

Let go, follow your instinct, become a hated conspiracy nut.

What is TRUTH worth if you have to pay the rent.

What do I care about communists and jewish people marching off to the
CONCENTRATION CAMP ... the NAZI party is good for business...

Oh, America is the greatest country... !!

[Johnny Bravo]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 19:40:47 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>> Or in the worst case, compass headings and time of travel adjusted by wind
>> speed. The weather in Germany isn't always good enough for seeing the ground
>> from 30k feet. :)
>
>Or indeed in the dark ! It's barely believable today that RAF navigators used
>star sightings on early raids.

The RAF nighttime bombing campaign was a bit different, for one thing they
didn't pick a precision target, they just dropped on a whole city. Easy enough
to do in the dark that they got it right a whole lot more often than they got it
wrong. :)

[Johnny Bravo]

On 24 Feb 2006 14:15:25 -0800, wrote:

>
>Amazing how THE OFFICIAL NARRATIVE is being defended, tooth and nail.

It's better than any alternative proposed so far.

>Reality is complicated and sometimes seems illogical, but there WAS A
>DEFINITIVE sequence of events.

None of which involved micro-nukes, anti-matter, mind control, invisible
ninjas or time machines; every alternative theory I've seen to date requires at
least one of these elements.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

> Newps wrote:
> >>> Flying in clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
> >>
> >> At 30,000 feet it does
> >
> > Why? What does altitude have to do with it?
>
> Airspace between 18,000 feet MSL and Flight Level 600 is designated Class A
> airspace and all operations there must be conducted under IFR.
>
> http://www.asy.faa.gov/safety_products/airspaceclass.htm

....so the hijackers couldn't possibly have done it, since they might
have faced some severe fines or jail time if they got caught flying
those planes illegally when they crashed them into the towers.

[Scott M. Kozel]

Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:
> > Newps wrote:
> >
> > >>> Flying in clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
> > >>
> > >> At 30,000 feet it does
> > >
> > > Why? What does altitude have to do with it?
> >
> > Airspace between 18,000 feet MSL and Flight Level 600 is designated Class A
> > airspace and all operations there must be conducted under IFR.
> >
> > http://www.asy.faa.gov/safety_products/airspaceclass.htm
>
> ...so the hijackers couldn't possibly have done it, since they might
> have faced some severe fines or jail time if they got caught flying
> those planes illegally when they crashed them into the towers.

Maybe capital punishment too if anybody in the tower died as a result.

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>
>>>mrtravel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>TRUTH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
>>
>> was
>>
>>>>>>no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
>>>>>>skies does not require an instrument rating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Graham
>>>>
>>>>>At 30,000 feet it does
>>>>
>>>>But they went lower, didn't they?
>>>
>>>Irrelevant. They didn't care about the FAA rules.
>>>
>>>
>>>>At 30000 feet, do you think it would be possible to figure out where
>>>>Manhattan is, on a clear day? If you spend some time looking at maps,
>>
>> it
>>
>>>>wouldn't be that difficult.
>>>
>>>Anyone can fly a jet by visual references alone when the weather's
>>
>> fine.
>>
>>>Graham
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West Virginia?
>
> Was the WTC in WV?
>
>
>



The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC

[TRUTH]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Truth,
>
>> > How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
was
>> > no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
>> > skies does not require an instrument rating.
>> >
>> > Graham
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> At 30,000 feet it does
>>
>
> No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
> purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to be
> legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
>


Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do know is
what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly large
aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

[TRUTH]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Truth,
>
> Man, there is one thing I envy you for: the amount of TIME you must
> have at your disposal. A pity you waste it liek this, though.
>


at present, I do have an abundance of time

[TRUTH]

You think bin Laden admitted to 9/11?


Here's five Osamas:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/binladen8.jpg

Osama "E" admitted to 9/11 on videotape



The video is archived on National Public Radio's website here

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.t
ape.html


In that video, he writes with his right hand, when the FBI's website says
he's left handed.
He wears a gold ring, which is forbidden in Islam.

More info here

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

[TRUTH]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> Pooh Bear > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > TRUTH wrote:
>> >
>> >> Pooh Bear > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> > TRUTH wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Matt Wright" > wrote in
>> >> >> oups.com:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Another poster provided FAA records showing that Mohammed
>> >> >> > Atta was both commercial and instrument rated - hardly a
>> >> >> > "clueless non-pilot". Flight instructors maybe had poor
>> >> >> > overall opinions of the pilots, but you don't know how long
>> >> >> > they trained away from the flight school. You don't know how
>> >> >> > much "book time" they had studying avionics. The attack had
>> >> >> > years of planning behind it. I guess they could have spent
>> >> >> > that time playing pinball... but maybe instead they were
>> >> >> > studying. That something is hard does not make it impossible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Matt.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I missed that. Please post it. Still, showing one of them was
>> >> >> instrument trained does not explain the others
>> >> >
>> >> > How many times do you need to have it explained to you that
>> >> > there was no need for any of them to be instrument trained ?
>> >> > Flying in clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
>> >> >
>> >> > Graham
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> At 30,000 feet it does
>> >
>> > INCORRECT !
>> >
>> > FAA regulations require the licensed crew to use instrument flying
>> > techniques ( for obvious reasons ).
>> >
>> > That doesn't mean that it's impossible to fly VFR ( visual flight
>> > rules ) - it just means you're breaking the law. Do you think the
>> > hijackers even cared about that ?
>> >
>> > If you can see the horizon / ground ( at any height ) you don't
>> > need to fly instruments ( other than to obey regulations ).
>> >
>> > Graham
>
>
>> Okay, I'll admit you "might" know about this stuff, although I would
>> give an Aeronautical Engineer's opinion a little more weight. I am
>> not an expert in every aspect of 9/11. And I admit it. Stange how
>> others do not do the same
>
> Look, dimbulb: THIS aeronautical engineer (with 40 years experience in
> field, BTW) and pilot (of 45 year experience) says that your source
> doesn't know what he is talking about; furthermore, it is irrelevant
> whether or not he is an "aeronautical engineer".
>
> I have worked with a whole spectrum of aero engineers -- their
> aeronautical knowledge has ranged from superior to abysmal -- your guy
> falls into the latter category.
>
> Your posting and the answers you have received fall into the category
> of, "If you aren't going to like the answer, don't ask the question."
> You have asked the question in an aviation newsgroup and gotten a
> unanimous answer: you are full of ****!
>



Well......it's obvious from the way you present yourself, that you are an
over emotional hot-head. Therefore you obviously cannot be trusted to
look at information objectively and clearly.



BTW.... You think bin Laden admitted to 9/11?


Here's five Osamas:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/binladen8.jpg

Osama "E" admitted to 9/11 on videotape. Even Mr Magoo can tell that is
not bin Ladin.



The video is archived on National Public Radio's website here

http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.t
ape.html


In that video, he writes with his right hand, when the FBI's website says
he's left handed.
He wears a gold ring, which is forbidden in Islam.

More info here

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
> :
>
>> Truth,
>>
>> Man, there is one thing I envy you for: the amount of TIME you must
>> have at your disposal. A pity you waste it liek this, though.
>>
>
>
> at present, I do have an abundance of time

Fired from your job or incarcerated?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[TRUTH]

The Whole Truth > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:18:54 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>
>>WTC 7 was NOT hit by an airplane. Never before in world history has a
>>steel framed hi rise totally collapsed from "fire". Not before 9/11,
>>not after 9/11. Never. Yet on 9/11, three building's supposedly
>>collapsed from fire. The government destroyed the evidence before a
>>proper investigation could be done. (Some people argue this, but they
>>provide no proof. The destruction on evidence is factual.)
>
> Also, you have yet to offer even a remotely plausible theory as to
> why the
> government would go through all the trouble of blowing up WTC-7 in the
> first place. It's not like it was full of people, the general public
> had never even heard of it and given all the attention to the 3,000
> deaths and WTC-1 and 2; most people have still never even heard of
> WTC-7.



Okay. WTC 7 was the only WTC building not in the same physical area as
the other WTC buidlings. The leaseholder of WTC 7 had been in posession
of the lease since the building was built in 1987. Six weeks before 9/11
he bought a lease on the entire WTC complex. I don't know the legality,
but this site may help explain:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2002/06/07/15925.htm


Also, WTC 7 housed numerous government agencies. Paper documents, such as
those from ENRON, were destroyed when the building was "pulled".

WTC 7 was a steel framed building and housed the mayor's 13 million
dollar command bunker. It is theorized that this bunker was used to
control the Towers' demolitions (it was dust proof), and therefore needed
to be destroyed for any evidence it may have.

Also, the WTC 7 collapse begs the question: would the city construct the
mayor's 13 million dollar command bunker in a building that could
completely collapse from random damage and fires?

Not many people know about WTC 7 because of media silence. Even when
Professor Jones was on MSNBC, the station refused to play the WTC7 video
clip he sent them! info on this at www.st911.org

[TRUTH]

see here

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/building7.html

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:fjXLf.27320$Ug4.323@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Truth,
>>>
>>> Man, there is one thing I envy you for: the amount of TIME you must
>>> have at your disposal. A pity you waste it liek this, though.
>>>
>>
>>
>> at present, I do have an abundance of time
>
> Fired from your job or incarcerated?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>



Perhaps I was sent on a mission from God, like Bush...


LONDON GUARDIAN:
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html

[Pooh Bear]

TRUTH wrote:

> >> > How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
> was
> >> > no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
> >> > skies does not require an instrument rating.
> >> >
> >> > Graham
> >>
> >> At 30,000 feet it does
> >
> > No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
> > purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to be
> > legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
>
> Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do know is
> what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly large
> aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )

http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/

Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an instrument
rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large aircraft ?

Graham

[Dan]

Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>>>>> How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
>> was
>>>>> no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
>>>>> skies does not require an instrument rating.
>>>>>
>>>>> Graham
>>>> At 30,000 feet it does
>>> No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
>>> purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to be
>>> legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
>> Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do know is
>> what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly large
>> aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
>
> Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )
>
> http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/
>
> Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an instrument
> rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large aircraft ?
>
> Graham
>
>

He won't because the obvious has eluded him all along assuming he's
ever flown in a commercial airliner. At 30 kilofeet on a clear day you
can look down from your passenger seat and recognize landmarks. It would
disturb him to have to actually admit another flaw in his "logic."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[khobar]

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> Dan > wrote in news:fjXLf.27320$Ug4.323@dukeread12:
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >>> Truth,
> >>>
> >>> Man, there is one thing I envy you for: the amount of TIME you must
> >>> have at your disposal. A pity you waste it liek this, though.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> at present, I do have an abundance of time
> >
> > Fired from your job or incarcerated?
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Perhaps I was sent on a mission from God, like Bush...
>
>
> LONDON GUARDIAN:
> George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html

Thank you for demonstrating why The Guardian is not a credible news source.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abbas-denies-bushs-mission-from-god-remark/2005/10/08/1128563027485.html

"Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has denied an account by another
Palestinian official of a meeting with US President George Bush in which
Bush is cited as saying he believed that God told him to go to war in
Afghanistan and Iraq. "

"This report is not true," the Abbas statement said today. "I have never
heard President Bush talking about religion as a reason behind the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush has never mentioned that in front of me
on any occasion and specifically not during my visit in 2003."

Try again.

Paul Nixon

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn > wrote in
(snipped)
> >
> > Look, dimbulb: THIS aeronautical engineer (with 40 years experience in
> > field, BTW) and pilot (of 45 year experience) says that your source
> > doesn't know what he is talking about; furthermore, it is irrelevant
> > whether or not he is an "aeronautical engineer".
> >
> > I have worked with a whole spectrum of aero engineers -- their
> > aeronautical knowledge has ranged from superior to abysmal -- your guy
> > falls into the latter category.
> >
> > Your posting and the answers you have received fall into the category
> > of, "If you aren't going to like the answer, don't ask the question."
> > You have asked the question in an aviation newsgroup and gotten a
> > unanimous answer: you are full of ****!


> Well......it's obvious from the way you present yourself, that you are an
> over emotional hot-head. Therefore you obviously cannot be trusted to
> look at information objectively and clearly.

No -- I just have little patience for fools who conjure up all kinds of
cockamamie scenarios in order to feed their pet fantasies. I have
examined the "expert sources" that "TRUTH" dragged up and have found
them all wanting. He reminds me of somebody that has a whole room full
of defective or broken engine parts (cracked cylinders, worn cams and
crankshafts, worn out pistons, tec.) and assembles them into a "complete
engine" and then offers it for sale on ebay.

I have heard the term, but I have never encountered a schlemazzel before
I encountered "TRUTH" on the Usenet.

As I posted -- if you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the
question. "TRUTH" came into this NG expecting somebody


> BTW.... You think bin Laden admitted to 9/11?

Yes. So did al-Zawahiri and Moussaui.

> Here's five Osamas:
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/binladen8.jpg
>
> Osama "E" admitted to 9/11 on videotape. Even Mr Magoo can tell that is
> not bin Ladin.


Why? Does "TRUTH" know him personally (Osama or Mr. Magoo)?


> The video is archived on National Public Radio's website here
>
> http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.t
> ape.html
>
>
> In that video, he writes with his right hand, when the FBI's website says
> he's left handed.
> He wears a gold ring, which is forbidden in Islam.


How do we know that he isn't ambidextrous? Killing innocent people is
also forbidden in Islam, but that didn't stop Osama.

>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
mrtravel > wrote:

> TRUTH wrote:
> > mrtravel > wrote in news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236
> > @newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
> >>>
> >>>Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West Virginia?
> >>
> >>Was the WTC in WV?
> >
> > The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC
>
> When they arrived at WTC, were there clouds?

No -- the weather was "severe clear" over the entire East Coast of the
US, as I have pointed out earlier.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
> :
>
> > Truth,
> >
> >> > How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
> was
> >> > no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
> >> > skies does not require an instrument rating.
> >> >
> >> > Graham
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At 30,000 feet it does
> >>
> >
> > No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
> > purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to be
> > legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
> >
>
>
> Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do know is
> what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly large
> aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

He isn't. Neither does his name show up in the US pilot data base
(conclusion: He is a fraud).

So, why don't you accept the assessment of other, more experienced
engineers and pilots?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Dan > wrote in news:fjXLf.27320$Ug4.323@dukeread12:
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >>> Truth,
> >>>
> >>> Man, there is one thing I envy you for: the amount of TIME you must
> >>> have at your disposal. A pity you waste it liek this, though.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> at present, I do have an abundance of time
> >
> > Fired from your job or incarcerated?
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Perhaps I was sent on a mission from God, like Bush...

How do you know that it was *God* speaking, and not the Devil?

[TJ]

TRUTH wrote:
> BTW.... You think bin Laden admitted to 9/11?
>
>
> Here's five Osamas:
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/binladen8.jpg
>
> Osama "E" admitted to 9/11 on videotape. Even Mr Magoo can tell that is
> not bin Ladin.

Have you watched the entire video and not just relied on the image that
most conspiracy theory holders refer back to? That image is not
representative of the whole video. It has been edited/sharpened and put
forward as proof. It is a joke. Why don't they post any other stills
from the video? Why do you never see any of these websites posting a
representative selection from the video. Why just this image?

In reference to the ring. How do you know it is gold? Bin Laden has
been noted wearing a ring on several other videos. Are those tapes all
fake too?

TJ

[Thomas Borchert]

Truth,

> What I do know is
> what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly large
> aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
>

So what about the several tens of people equally qualified that tell you
here that your aeronautical engineer is wrong?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Okay. WTC 7 was the only WTC building not in the same physical area as
> the other WTC buidlings.

Except, of course (and we all knew this was coming, right), that it
*was* in the same area.

It wasn't immediately next door, but was in the same area, and was
actually closer to the towers than some other buildings that were also
heavily damaged. The only intervening building was WTC 6, a fairly
small one (that was pretty much erased when the towers fell). Between
fire and the earthquake-equivalent damage, WTC 7 was a lost cause well
before it fell in on itself.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do know is
> what an aeronautical engineer has said

Yeah - one crazy ex-engineer who used to be active about thirty years
ago, but who now writes about UFOs and odd religious beliefs.

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:
>
> Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do know is
> what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly large
> aircralf.) I consider him an expert.

Because *he* validates *your* personal worldview.

Meanwhile, any number of active/retired commercial/military/GA pilots,
structural engineers, physicists and so on declare his ideas complete
and utter nonsense ...

You don't get to decide what is fact or not, you only get to choose
whether or not you accept fact.

And you failed the quiz.

[The Whole Truth]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:52:41 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>Okay. WTC 7 was the only WTC building not in the same physical area as
>the other WTC buidlings.

WTC-7 was located 355 feet from the North Tower.

>The leaseholder of WTC 7 had been in posession
>of the lease since the building was built in 1987. Six weeks before 9/11
>he bought a lease on the entire WTC complex. I don't know the legality,
>but this site may help explain:
>http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2002/06/07/15925.htm

Your point? You know even know if it's relevant but you throw it out anyway.

>Also, WTC 7 housed numerous government agencies. Paper documents, such as
>those from ENRON, were destroyed when the building was "pulled".

Only a moron would blow up an office building they own to destroy their own
documents instead of simply shredding them. Only a complete idiot would claim
that an agency capable of secretly blowing up a national landmark and killing
3,000 people are morons.

>WTC 7 was a steel framed building and housed the mayor's 13 million
>dollar command bunker. It is theorized that this bunker was used to
>control the Towers' demolitions (it was dust proof), and therefore needed
>to be destroyed for any evidence it may have.

So not only was it the federal government, the city of New York was involved?
We're talking hundreds of people, if not thousands; to do something that would
have been just as easily accomplished from inside a portable trailer with a 10
man crew.

>Also, the WTC 7 collapse begs the question: would the city construct the
>mayor's 13 million dollar command bunker in a building that could
>completely collapse from random damage and fires?

There is no such thing as an indestructable building, where should they have
located it, inside Norad's Chyenne Mountain complex?

>Not many people know about WTC 7 because of media silence. Even when
>Professor Jones was on MSNBC, the station refused to play the WTC7 video
>clip he sent them! info on this at www.st911.org

You still haven't offered one shred of evidence as to how the government knew
in advance that a building not in the same physical area as the impacts would be
hit by large pieces of debris and set on fire for half a day with the fire
unable to be controlled by the NYFD due to 20 inch water main ruptured by
falling debris.

[The Whole Truth]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:56:57 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>see here
>
>http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/building7.html

Nothing there about how the government knew in advance that it would be hit by
falling debris and the NYFD would be unable to fight the fire due to a 20 inch
water main in front of the building being ruptured by falling debris.

Had that not happened, the government would have blown up a perfectly fine
building. Are you claiming that the government has a machine that can see the
future or agents of the government can travel backwards in time?

[Johnny Bravo]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:18:10 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>In that video, he writes with his right hand, when the FBI's website says
>he's left handed.
>He wears a gold ring, which is forbidden in Islam.

Blowing up 3,000 random people is also forbidden in Islam. Apparently
following the rules isn't one of Bin Laden's strong points.

[mrtravel]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >,
> mrtravel > wrote:
>
>
>>TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>>mrtravel > wrote in news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236
:
>>>
>>>>>Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West Virginia?
>>>>
>>>>Was the WTC in WV?
>>>
>>>The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC
>>
>>When they arrived at WTC, were there clouds?
>
>
> No -- the weather was "severe clear" over the entire East Coast of the
> US, as I have pointed out earlier.

WE know it was clear.. TRUTH is the one with the head that is cloudy

[Johnny Bravo]

On 26 Feb 2006 03:07:06 -0800, wrote:

>everyone is a nutter,

Not everyone, just a few fringe lunatics who think the government has a time
machine so they could know to wire WTC-7 in advance. Otherwise they spend a
thousands of man hours planting thousands of pounds of explosives in a building
that hadn't been touched, causing a building to collapse that didn't even catch
on fire.

[Johnny Bravo]

On 26 Feb 2006 11:54:07 -0800, "george" > wrote:

>
>Johnny Bravo wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2006 03:07:06 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >everyone is a nutter,
>>
>> Not everyone, just a few fringe lunatics who think the government has a time
>> machine so they could know to wire WTC-7 in advance. Otherwise they spend a
>> thousands of man hours planting thousands of pounds of explosives in a building
>> that hadn't been touched, causing a building to collapse that didn't even catch
>> on fire.
>:-)
>To further confound the conspiracy nutters heres a link to the world of
>building demolitions..
>http://www.implosionworld.com/
>It takes a -long- time to set up such a demolition..

I've seen a site where it was claimed that a tiny thermonuclear weapon was
used, possibly ignited by anti-matter.

Apparently there isn't any limit to what they will believe as long as it
reaffirms their delusions.

[TRUTH]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in news:orfairbairn-
:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> Dan > wrote in news:fjXLf.27320$Ug4.323@dukeread12:
>>
>> > TRUTH wrote:
>> >> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >>> Truth,
>> >>>
>> >>> Man, there is one thing I envy you for: the amount of TIME you
must
>> >>> have at your disposal. A pity you waste it liek this, though.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> at present, I do have an abundance of time
>> >
>> > Fired from your job or incarcerated?
>> >
>> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps I was sent on a mission from God, like Bush...
>
> How do you know that it was *God* speaking, and not the Devil?
>



For all we know, Bush might have been speaking to the devil. Afterall
John Buchanan says (paraphrased):

"Bush does not take his philosophical foundation from the bible. Bush
gets his inspiration from what he learned in Skull and Bones."

Buchanan is the investigative journalist who found proof at the National
Arhives and Library of Congress that Bush's grandfather, senator
Presott, conspired to overthrow the constitution, assisisnate FDR, and
turn the US in a Nazi camp, as is explained in this video:
http://illuminati-news.com/Videos/keeping-it-in-the-family.wmv

[TRUTH]

Pooh Bear > wrote in
:

>
>
> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> >> > How many times do you need to have it explained to you that
>> >> > there
>> was
>> >> > no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
>> >> > clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
>> >> >
>> >> > Graham
>> >>
>> >> At 30,000 feet it does
>> >
>> > No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
>> > purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
>> > be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
>>
>> Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
>> know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
>> to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
>
> Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )
>
> http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/
>
> Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
> instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
> aircraft ?
>
> Graham
>
>
>



Thanks Graham, I bookmarked that link. Will take a look later on

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:GeZLf.27395$Ug4.14004@dukeread12:

> Pooh Bear wrote:
>>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>>>>> How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
>>> was
>>>>>> no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
>>>>>> clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Graham
>>>>> At 30,000 feet it does
>>>> No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
>>>> purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
>>>> be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
>>> Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
>>> know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
>>> to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
>>
>> Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )
>>
>> http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/
>>
>> Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
>> instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
>> aircraft ?
>>
>> Graham
>>
>>
>
> He won't because the obvious has eluded him all along assuming he's
> ever flown in a commercial airliner. At 30 kilofeet on a clear day you
> can look down from your passenger seat and recognize landmarks. It
> would disturb him to have to actually admit another flaw in his
> "logic."
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>



oh give it up already!

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in news:Ap_Lf.35165$Jd.26287
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> mrtravel > wrote in news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236
>> @newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>>>>
>>>>Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West Virginia?
>>>
>>>Was the WTC in WV?
>>
>> The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC
>
> When they arrived at WTC, were there clouds?
>
>



In NYC, no. It was a beautiful sunny day, calm wind

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in news:NhcMf.40620$H71.30128
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> mrtravel > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>TRUTH wrote:
>>>
>>>>mrtravel > wrote in news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236
:
>>>>
>>>>>>Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West Virginia?
>>>>>
>>>>>Was the WTC in WV?
>>>>
>>>>The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC
>>>
>>>When they arrived at WTC, were there clouds?
>>
>>
>> No -- the weather was "severe clear" over the entire East Coast of the
>> US, as I have pointed out earlier.
>
> WE know it was clear.. TRUTH is the one with the head that is cloudy
>



How bout stopping the childish insults already? I *never* said it was
cloudy above NYC.

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in
et:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>>
>> In that video, he writes with his right hand, when the FBI's website
>> says he's left handed.
>> He wears a gold ring, which is forbidden in Islam.
>
> Going to strip shows is forbidden too, correct?
> That didn't stop some of the hijackers from going.


That clearly demonstates that those muslims were not religious. Would a
religious muslim terrorist go to a strip bar, and then kill himself for
Allah?



> Do you also think Islam is about killing innocent people?


There are different ways of interpreting the Koran. Muslim terrorists
"see it" as justifying murder. But must Muslims are peaceful people

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in
t:

> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>> Also, WTC 7 housed numerous government agencies. Paper documents,
>> such as those from ENRON, were destroyed when the building was
>> "pulled".
>
> Wow, that explains it.
> Not only did the government do this in order to invade Iraq, but also
> to stop government documents about Bush's Enron involvement from being
> discovered. Too bad they forgot the "grassy knoll's" gun is still
> stored at WTC 6.
>
> One question. Do you wear your hat with the shiny side out or in?
>


You have to put everything into context

[TRUTH]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Truth,
>
>> What I do know is
>> what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly
>> large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
>>
>
> So what about the several tens of people equally qualified that tell
> you here that your aeronautical engineer is wrong?
>


They are going under the assumption that our government couldn't be
invloved in 9/11

[TRUTH]

The Whole Truth > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:52:41 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>
>>Okay. WTC 7 was the only WTC building not in the same physical area as
>>the other WTC buidlings.
>
> WTC-7 was located 355 feet from the North Tower.


Okay

>
>>The leaseholder of WTC 7 had been in posession
>>of the lease since the building was built in 1987. Six weeks before
>>9/11 he bought a lease on the entire WTC complex. I don't know the
>>legality, but this site may help explain:
>>http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2002/06/07/15925.htm
>
> Your point? You know even know if it's relevant but you throw it
> out anyway.



WTC 7 needed to be destoyed for legal reasons.



>
>>Also, WTC 7 housed numerous government agencies. Paper documents, such
>>as those from ENRON, were destroyed when the building was "pulled".
>
> Only a moron would blow up an office building they own to destroy
> their own
> documents instead of simply shredding them. Only a complete idiot
> would claim that an agency capable of secretly blowing up a national
> landmark and killing 3,000 people are morons.



You are right. And that's why there was much more involved than that.



>>WTC 7 was a steel framed building and housed the mayor's 13 million
>>dollar command bunker. It is theorized that this bunker was used to
>>control the Towers' demolitions (it was dust proof), and therefore
>>needed to be destroyed for any evidence it may have.
>
> So not only was it the federal government, the city of New York was
> involved?
> We're talking hundreds of people, if not thousands; to do something
> that would have been just as easily accomplished from inside a
> portable trailer with a 10 man crew.


Not nessarily the "federal government", or "the city of New York" as a
unit, but individual people from within. I can assure you, the entire NYC
Police Dept and the entire NYC Fire Dept knows that 9/11 was an inside
job. But they are forbidden to discuss it, as per gag orders. The major
has publically stated that he was warned that the South Tower was going
to collapse. This notification came from the OEM. Why did they tell him
and not the firefighters in the buildings? The City of NY tried
desperately to keep the WTC Task Force Interview transcripts private. But
the NY Times sued the City and won (after a year long court battle). The
Times published them, and it is clear that FDNY personnel saw flashes and
heard explosions that they compared to controlled demoltions. See this
page for a collaboration:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820






>
>>Also, the WTC 7 collapse begs the question: would the city construct
>>the mayor's 13 million dollar command bunker in a building that could
>>completely collapse from random damage and fires?
>
> There is no such thing as an indestructable building, where should
> they have
> located it, inside Norad's Chyenne Mountain complex?
>
>>Not many people know about WTC 7 because of media silence. Even when
>>Professor Jones was on MSNBC, the station refused to play the WTC7
>>video clip he sent them! info on this at www.st911.org
>
> You still haven't offered one shred of evidence as to how the
> government knew
> in advance that a building not in the same physical area as the
> impacts would be hit by large pieces of debris and set on fire for
> half a day with the fire unable to be controlled by the NYFD due to 20
> inch water main ruptured by falling debris.
>

It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris. And the only reason those
fires spread in the first place, was because the WTC fire alarm was put
in "test mode" at 6:47 AM on 9/11, effectively disabling it. This
information was furnished by the official NIST report

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> "khobar" > wrote in
> news:IQ_Lf.4565$Sp2.2612@fed1read02:
>
>> "TRUTH" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Dan > wrote in news:fjXLf.27320$Ug4.323@dukeread12:
>>>
>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
>>>>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>> Truth,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Man, there is one thing I envy you for: the amount of TIME you
>>>>>> must have at your disposal. A pity you waste it liek this,
>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> at present, I do have an abundance of time
>>>> Fired from your job or incarcerated?
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Perhaps I was sent on a mission from God, like Bush...
>>>
>>>
>>> LONDON GUARDIAN:
>>> George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html
>> Thank you for demonstrating why The Guardian is not a credible news
>> source.
>>
>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abbas-denies-bushs-mission-from-god-re
>> mark/2005/10/08/1128563027485.html
>>
>> "Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has denied an account by another
>> Palestinian official of a meeting with US President George Bush in
>> which Bush is cited as saying he believed that God told him to go to
>> war in Afghanistan and Iraq. "
>>
>> "This report is not true," the Abbas statement said today. "I have
>> never heard President Bush talking about religion as a reason behind
>> the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush has never mentioned
>> that in front of me on any occasion and specifically not during my
>> visit in 2003."
>>
>> Try again.
>>
>> Paul Nixon
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> Everyone knows Bush is a born again christian. Besides this was also
> covered on CNN. Bush has also said that he speaks to God

Anyone who prays speaks to God, genius.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:GeZLf.27395$Ug4.14004@dukeread12:
>
>> Pooh Bear wrote:
>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
>>>> was
>>>>>>> no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
>>>>>>> clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>> At 30,000 feet it does
>>>>> No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
>>>>> purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
>>>>> be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
>>>> Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
>>>> know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
>>>> to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
>>> Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )
>>>
>>> http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/
>>>
>>> Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
>>> instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
>>> aircraft ?
>>>
>>> Graham
>>>
>>>
>> He won't because the obvious has eluded him all along assuming he's
>> ever flown in a commercial airliner. At 30 kilofeet on a clear day you
>> can look down from your passenger seat and recognize landmarks. It
>> would disturb him to have to actually admit another flaw in his
>> "logic."
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
> oh give it up already!

You can't see the ground from an airliner on a clear day like the
rest of us? Why not?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> mrtravel > wrote in news:NhcMf.40620$H71.30128
> @newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> mrtravel > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> mrtravel > wrote in news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236
>>>>> @newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West Virginia?
>>>>>> Was the WTC in WV?
>>>>> The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC
>>>> When they arrived at WTC, were there clouds?
>>>
>>> No -- the weather was "severe clear" over the entire East Coast of the
>>> US, as I have pointed out earlier.
>> WE know it was clear.. TRUTH is the one with the head that is cloudy
>>
>
>
>
> How bout stopping the childish insults already?

Will you stop also?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Chad Irby > wrote in
> :
>
>> In article >,
>> TRUTH > wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
>>> know is what an aeronautical engineer has said
>> Yeah - one crazy ex-engineer who used to be active about thirty years
>> ago, but who now writes about UFOs and odd religious beliefs.
>>
>
>
> You need to take all the evidence in context

Taken in context Jones is full of it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:

>
> It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris. And the only reason those
> fires spread in the first place, was because the WTC fire alarm was put
> in "test mode" at 6:47 AM on 9/11, effectively disabling it. This
> information was furnished by the official NIST report

Yes, it was in the report, but it doesn't prove a plot and the
sprinklers still would have gone off, the heads have a fusible link, had
there been any water. Stop being so paranoid.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Pooh Bear]

TRUTH wrote:

> "khobar" > wrote in
> news:IQ_Lf.4565$Sp2.2612@fed1read02:
>
> > "This report is not true," the Abbas statement said today. "I have
> > never heard President Bush talking about religion as a reason behind
> > the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush has never mentioned
> > that in front of me on any occasion and specifically not during my
> > visit in 2003."
> >
> > Try again.
> >
> > Paul Nixon
>
> Everyone knows Bush is a born again christian. Besides this was also
> covered on CNN. Bush has also said that he speaks to God

None of which actually proves your suggestion.

Graham

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:qFoMf.53316$Ug4.17914@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> mrtravel > wrote in news:NhcMf.40620$H71.30128
>> @newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>>
>>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> mrtravel > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> mrtravel > wrote in
>>>>>> news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236 @newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West
>>>>>>>> Virginia?
>>>>>>> Was the WTC in WV?
>>>>>> The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC
>>>>> When they arrived at WTC, were there clouds?
>>>>
>>>> No -- the weather was "severe clear" over the entire East Coast of
>>>> the US, as I have pointed out earlier.
>>> WE know it was clear.. TRUTH is the one with the head that is cloudy
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How bout stopping the childish insults already?
>
> Will you stop also?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>



Any insults from me are only in response to insults

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:yUoMf.53320$Ug4.53068@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>>
>> It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris. And the only reason
>> those fires spread in the first place, was because the WTC fire alarm
>> was put in "test mode" at 6:47 AM on 9/11, effectively disabling it.
>> This information was furnished by the official NIST report
>
> Yes, it was in the report, but it doesn't prove a plot and the
> sprinklers still would have gone off, the heads have a fusible link,
> had there been any water. Stop being so paranoid.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>



again, you must take everything in context

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:yUoMf.53320$Ug4.53068@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>> It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris. And the only reason
>>> those fires spread in the first place, was because the WTC fire alarm
>>> was put in "test mode" at 6:47 AM on 9/11, effectively disabling it.
>>> This information was furnished by the official NIST report
>> Yes, it was in the report, but it doesn't prove a plot and the
>> sprinklers still would have gone off, the heads have a fusible link,
>> had there been any water. Stop being so paranoid.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
> again, you must take everything in context

As should you. You tell us that WTC7 burned because the alarm was
test mode. I prove that wouldn't have stopped water from being sprayed
from the heads. That taken "in context" doesn't begin to approach an
element of a conspiracy. You have drawn the wrong conclusion. Whether
the alarm was working or not the sprinkler heads were. Try thinking
logically. The water mains were broken by WTC1 and WTC2 collapse, the
alarm had no net influence whatsoever. Now do you understand?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:qFoMf.53316$Ug4.17914@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> mrtravel > wrote in news:NhcMf.40620$H71.30128
>>> @newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>>>
>>>> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> mrtravel > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mrtravel > wrote in
>>>>>>> news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236 @newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West
>>>>>>>>> Virginia?
>>>>>>>> Was the WTC in WV?
>>>>>>> The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC
>>>>>> When they arrived at WTC, were there clouds?
>>>>> No -- the weather was "severe clear" over the entire East Coast of
>>>>> the US, as I have pointed out earlier.
>>>> WE know it was clear.. TRUTH is the one with the head that is cloudy
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How bout stopping the childish insults already?
>> Will you stop also?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
> Any insults from me are only in response to insults

Which makes them no less childish. Do you realize how immature it
sounds to say "he started it?"

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:B7vMf.53376$Ug4.29696@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:yUoMf.53320$Ug4.53068@dukeread12:
>>
>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>
>>>> It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris. And the only reason
>>>> those fires spread in the first place, was because the WTC fire
alarm
>>>> was put in "test mode" at 6:47 AM on 9/11, effectively disabling it.
>>>> This information was furnished by the official NIST report
>>> Yes, it was in the report, but it doesn't prove a plot and the
>>> sprinklers still would have gone off, the heads have a fusible link,
>>> had there been any water. Stop being so paranoid.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> again, you must take everything in context
>
> As should you. You tell us that WTC7 burned because the alarm was
> test mode. I prove that wouldn't have stopped water from being sprayed
> from the heads. That taken "in context" doesn't begin to approach an
> element of a conspiracy. You have drawn the wrong conclusion. Whether
> the alarm was working or not the sprinkler heads were. Try thinking
> logically. The water mains were broken by WTC1 and WTC2 collapse, the
> alarm had no net influence whatsoever. Now do you understand?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is that
it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:B7vMf.53376$Ug4.29696@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in news:yUoMf.53320$Ug4.53068@dukeread12:
>>>
>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris. And the only reason
>>>>> those fires spread in the first place, was because the WTC fire
> alarm
>>>>> was put in "test mode" at 6:47 AM on 9/11, effectively disabling it.
>>>>> This information was furnished by the official NIST report
>>>> Yes, it was in the report, but it doesn't prove a plot and the
>>>> sprinklers still would have gone off, the heads have a fusible link,
>>>> had there been any water. Stop being so paranoid.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> again, you must take everything in context
>> As should you. You tell us that WTC7 burned because the alarm was
>> test mode. I prove that wouldn't have stopped water from being sprayed
>> from the heads. That taken "in context" doesn't begin to approach an
>> element of a conspiracy. You have drawn the wrong conclusion. Whether
>> the alarm was working or not the sprinkler heads were. Try thinking
>> logically. The water mains were broken by WTC1 and WTC2 collapse, the
>> alarm had no net influence whatsoever. Now do you understand?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
>
> Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is that
> it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.

So what? There could be a myriad of reasons why. Perhaps it was an
accident. Perhaps someone was troubleshooting the system. The fact
remains YOU have no idea why it was done.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Stan de SD]

"Johnny Bravo" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Feb 2006 11:54:07 -0800, "george" > wrote:
>
> >
> >Johnny Bravo wrote:
> >> On 26 Feb 2006 03:07:06 -0800, wrote:
> >>
> >> >everyone is a nutter,
> >>
> >> Not everyone, just a few fringe lunatics who think the government has
a time
> >> machine so they could know to wire WTC-7 in advance. Otherwise they
spend a
> >> thousands of man hours planting thousands of pounds of explosives in a
building
> >> that hadn't been touched, causing a building to collapse that didn't
even catch
> >> on fire.
> >:-)
> >To further confound the conspiracy nutters heres a link to the world of
> >building demolitions..
> >http://www.implosionworld.com/
> >It takes a -long- time to set up such a demolition..
>
> I've seen a site where it was claimed that a tiny thermonuclear weapon
was
> used, possibly ignited by anti-matter.
>
> Apparently there isn't any limit to what they will believe as long as it
> reaffirms their delusions.

Sort of a "fact-free" zone, huh?

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:

> mrtravel > wrote in news:Ap_Lf.35165$Jd.26287
> @newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:
>
>
>>TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>>mrtravel > wrote in news:lizLf.39501$H71.28236
:
>>>
>>>>>Didn't the engineer's article mention clouds over West Virginia?
>>>>
>>>>Was the WTC in WV?
>>>
>>>The supposed hijacking did not occur near the WTC
>>
>>When they arrived at WTC, were there clouds?
>>

>
> In NYC, no. It was a beautiful sunny day, calm wind

So, TRUTH, why couldn't they see the landmarks on the ground?

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:
>
> How bout stopping the childish insults already? I *never* said it was
> cloudy above NYC.

You said it was cloudy over WV.. How would that affect the ability to
see the WTC?

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:

> mrtravel > wrote in
> et:
>
>
>>TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In that video, he writes with his right hand, when the FBI's website
>>>says he's left handed.
>>>He wears a gold ring, which is forbidden in Islam.
>>
>>Going to strip shows is forbidden too, correct?
>>That didn't stop some of the hijackers from going.
>
>
>
> That clearly demonstates that those muslims were not religious. Would a
> religious muslim terrorist go to a strip bar, and then kill himself for
> Allah?
>
>
>
>
>>Do you also think Islam is about killing innocent people?
>
>
>
> There are different ways of interpreting the Koran. Muslim terrorists
> "see it" as justifying murder. But must Muslims are peaceful people

Is it possible that some of them interpret it to believe that wearing
gold is OK? You argument seemed to be that the person couldn't be Muslim
because he was wearing gold.

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:

> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Truth,
>>
>>
>>>What I do know is
>>>what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly
>>>large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
>>>
>>
>>So what about the several tens of people equally qualified that tell
>>you here that your aeronautical engineer is wrong?
>>
>
>
>
> They are going under the assumption that our government couldn't be
> invloved in 9/11

No, they are going under the assumption that it is possible to steer a
commercial airliner into big buildings. Even YOU made comments about
the Bush administration knowing about potential hijackings.

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:
>
> Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is that
> it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.

So? If there was no effect, then what difference does it make.
On the morning of 9/11, I suspect the firemen were more concerned with
WTC 1 and 2. If explosives were used to bring down WTC 1,2, and 7, what
difference would turning off the fire alarm make?

[Thomas Borchert]

Johnny,

> Apparently
> following the rules isn't one of Bin Laden's strong points.
>

That changes only when he sends people flying big jets at high
altitudes. Which is why he didn't do it... ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stan de SD]

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in news:EoxMf.25449$_S7.23208
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>> How bout stopping the childish insults already? I *never* said it was
>> cloudy above NYC.
>
> You said it was cloudy over WV.. How would that affect the ability to
> see the WTC?
>


It would affect their ability to fly from WV to NY

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in news:arxMf.25451$_S7.15621
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> mrtravel > wrote in
>> et:
>>
>>
>>>TRUTH wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In that video, he writes with his right hand, when the FBI's website
>>>>says he's left handed.
>>>>He wears a gold ring, which is forbidden in Islam.
>>>
>>>Going to strip shows is forbidden too, correct?
>>>That didn't stop some of the hijackers from going.
>>
>>
>>
>> That clearly demonstates that those muslims were not religious. Would
a
>> religious muslim terrorist go to a strip bar, and then kill himself
for
>> Allah?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Do you also think Islam is about killing innocent people?
>>
>>
>>
>> There are different ways of interpreting the Koran. Muslim terrorists
>> "see it" as justifying murder. But must Muslims are peaceful people
>
> Is it possible that some of them interpret it to believe that wearing
> gold is OK? You argument seemed to be that the person couldn't be
Muslim
> because he was wearing gold.


That's an interesting point!

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in news:NGxMf.25458$_S7.22969
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Truth,
>>>
>>>
>>>>What I do know is
>>>>what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly
>>>>large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
>>>>
>>>
>>>So what about the several tens of people equally qualified that tell
>>>you here that your aeronautical engineer is wrong?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> They are going under the assumption that our government couldn't be
>> invloved in 9/11
>
> No, they are going under the assumption that it is possible to steer a
> commercial airliner into big buildings. Even YOU made comments about
> the Bush administration knowing about potential hijackings.



I don't remember what your/my original point was in this part of the
discussion, so it's hard to comment

[TRUTH]

mrtravel > wrote in
. com:

> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>> Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is
>> that it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.
>
> So? If there was no effect, then what difference does it make.
> On the morning of 9/11, I suspect the firemen were more concerned with
> WTC 1 and 2. If explosives were used to bring down WTC 1,2, and 7,
> what difference would turning off the fire alarm make?
>
>


The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

[Johnny Bravo]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:19:00 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>Buchanan is the investigative journalist who found proof at the National
>Arhives and Library of Congress that Bush's grandfather, senator
>Presott, conspired to overthrow the constitution, assisisnate FDR, and
>turn the US in a Nazi camp, as is explained in this video:

And as we all know, you're responsible for what your grandfather did before
you were even born. Oh, right, your not.

[The Whole Truth]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:52:12 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>mrtravel > wrote in
. com:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is
>>> that it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.
>>
>> So? If there was no effect, then what difference does it make.
>> On the morning of 9/11, I suspect the firemen were more concerned with
>> WTC 1 and 2. If explosives were used to bring down WTC 1,2, and 7,
>> what difference would turning off the fire alarm make?
>>
>>
>
>
>The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

You are the one who keeps claiming this as if it were a significant fact, it
is up to YOU to tell us why it is significant.

[Newps]

TRUTH wrote:


>>You said it was cloudy over WV.. How would that affect the ability to
>>see the WTC?
>>
>
>
>
> It would affect their ability to fly from WV to NY

No, it wouldn't.

[The Whole Truth]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:49:40 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>>>The leaseholder of WTC 7 had been in posession
>>>of the lease since the building was built in 1987. Six weeks before
>>>9/11 he bought a lease on the entire WTC complex. I don't know the
>>>legality, but this site may help explain:
>>>http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2002/06/07/15925.htm
>>
>> Your point? You know even know if it's relevant but you throw it
>> out anyway.
>
>
>
>WTC 7 needed to be destoyed for legal reasons.

What exactly were those reasons?

By the way, your link is completely off point. It says that the company that
borrowed hundreds of millions of dollards to buy WTC-7 is probably going to have
to use some of the insurance money to pay the people who loaned them the money
because while Silverstein does have a large amount of money lying around, it
probably doesn't amount to what they still owed on the building.

It's no different than if your house burns down and you use the insurance
money to pay off the mortgage that your bank holds. People don't kill 3,000
people and destroy a national landmark to get out of a mortgage, they either
foreclose and let the bank have the property or just sell the property and pay
off the bank with the proceeds.

>>>Also, WTC 7 housed numerous government agencies. Paper documents, such
>>>as those from ENRON, were destroyed when the building was "pulled".
>>
>> Only a moron would blow up an office building they own to destroy
>> their own
>> documents instead of simply shredding them. Only a complete idiot
>> would claim that an agency capable of secretly blowing up a national
>> landmark and killing 3,000 people are morons.
>
>You are right. And that's why there was much more involved than that.

Feel free to tell us exactly what was involved since the explanation you
offered was about the stupid reason I've ever heard for the government's
involvement in the 9/11 conspiracy.

You keep saying "THERE'S MORE, THERE'S MORE", yet you haven't even started
telling us what this "more" is yet.

>>>WTC 7 was a steel framed building and housed the mayor's 13 million
>>>dollar command bunker. It is theorized that this bunker was used to
>>>control the Towers' demolitions (it was dust proof), and therefore
>>>needed to be destroyed for any evidence it may have.
>>
>> So not only was it the federal government, the city of New York was
>> involved?
>> We're talking hundreds of people, if not thousands; to do something
>> that would have been just as easily accomplished from inside a
>> portable trailer with a 10 man crew.
>
>
>Not nessarily the "federal government", or "the city of New York" as a
>unit, but individual people from within. I can assure you, the entire NYC
>Police Dept and the entire NYC Fire Dept knows that 9/11 was an inside
>job. But they are forbidden to discuss it, as per gag orders.

If you think the entire NYPD and NYFD are going to ignore the murder of 3,000
of their friends, family and co-workers simply due to a gag order you are
without a doubt the stupidest individual I've met on the entire Internet. And
I've seen a loon who claims to check his daughters for an intact hymen after
their dates and that his masturbation caused his testicular cancer. I'm amazed
that someone so lacking in the capacity for rational thought can even operate a
computer well enough to post this idiocy.

>The major
>has publically stated that he was warned that the South Tower was going
>to collapse. This notification came from the OEM. Why did they tell him
>and not the firefighters in the buildings?

Because there were no firefighters in WTC-7, they were rather busy elsewhere.

>the NY Times sued the City and won (after a year long court battle). The
>Times published them, and it is clear that FDNY personnel saw flashes and
>heard explosions that they compared to controlled demoltions. See this
>page for a collaboration:
>http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820

Being compared to something does not mean that it is the thing being compared
to. Why don't you read the entire transcripts rather than the few select
highlighted lines that you think prove something. Here, I'll select a few
passages you seem to have missed entirely.

"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming
down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could
have been whatever." Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory

"Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that."
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick

"I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the
building. I assume now that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel
or something. Then the building started to come down"
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick

>> You still haven't offered one shred of evidence as to how the
>> government knew
>> in advance that a building not in the same physical area as the
>> impacts would be hit by large pieces of debris and set on fire for
>> half a day with the fire unable to be controlled by the NYFD due to 20
>> inch water main ruptured by falling debris.
>>
>
>It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris.

That's my entire point. What would have been the plan for WTC-7 if *NO DEBRIS
HAD HIT IT*? Blow up a completely intact building for nebulous reasons you say
exist but won't state? Don't blow up the building and have tens of thousands of
pounds of explosives found inside the gutted building? You do know that you
have to gut a building before you perform a controlled demolition on it, right?

>And the only reason those
>fires spread in the first place, was because the WTC fire alarm was put
>in "test mode" at 6:47 AM on 9/11, effectively disabling it.

The only reason those fires spread in the first place was that there was no
water supply to the sprinkler heads due to a ruptured 20 inch water main in the
street. The sprinklers would *AUTOMATICALLY* activate in the event of a fire.
The only thing the fire alarm in "test mode" did was fail to send an alert
signal to the monitoring company that a fire was detected. Given that there
were several thousand fire fighters on the site when it did catch on fire, that
signal would have been rather superfluous.

[Jose]

Yanno... the puzzle that I have is this:

The two theories vying for contention are
Theory 1: Terrorists hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into
the WTC and the Pentagon (and a field in Pennsylvania), presumably to
terrorize the US.

Theory 2: There were =no= airliners involved (since it would be
impossible for terrorists to fly commercial airplanes), but instead our
own government covertly destroyed the WTC and other buildings,
presumably in order to motivate us to war.

Now, given that destroying the buildings in any fashion involves loss of
lots of innocent lives, if our government wanted to do this, why would
it spare the lives of a few onboard the airplanes in order to fake the
attack. Why not simply have the government commandeer the airplanes
through its own agents, and fly them into the buildings? Everything
would fit the conspiracy scenario, and none of the observations would
need to be in contention. It's far easier for trained government agents
to crash an airplane than it is for them to secretly wire the WTC for
collapse, no? And any government willing to sacrifice 3000 of its own
innocent citizens would be willing to sacrifice a few hundred more.

Very neat, very tidy, very hard to disprove.

(for the record, I do not believe it, but it is still neat, tidy, and
hard to disprove - the ideal conspiracy theory)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> mrtravel > wrote in news:EoxMf.25449$_S7.23208
> @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> How bout stopping the childish insults already? I *never* said it was
>>> cloudy above NYC.
>> You said it was cloudy over WV.. How would that affect the ability to
>> see the WTC?
>>
>
>
> It would affect their ability to fly from WV to NY

Are you really that dense? Even a pilot with only minimal VFR
training or a child who has owned one knows how to read a magnetic
compass. Read FAA regulations, any IFR certified aircraft including 757
and 767 have mag compasses.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> mrtravel > wrote in news:NGxMf.25458$_S7.22969
> @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>
>>>> Truth,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What I do know is
>>>>> what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly
>>>>> large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
>>>>>
>>>> So what about the several tens of people equally qualified that tell
>>>> you here that your aeronautical engineer is wrong?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They are going under the assumption that our government couldn't be
>>> invloved in 9/11
>> No, they are going under the assumption that it is possible to steer a
>> commercial airliner into big buildings. Even YOU made comments about
>> the Bush administration knowing about potential hijackings.
>
>
>
> I don't remember what your/my original point was in this part of the
> discussion, so it's hard to comment

Go back and look, genius.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> mrtravel > wrote in
> . com:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is
>>> that it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.
>> So? If there was no effect, then what difference does it make.
>> On the morning of 9/11, I suspect the firemen were more concerned with
>> WTC 1 and 2. If explosives were used to bring down WTC 1,2, and 7,
>> what difference would turning off the fire alarm make?
>>
>>
>
>
> The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

Perhaps they had been getting false readings, perhaps it was an
accident, who knows. Not every thing done that day had nefarious intent.
I will give you an example from reality. In the mid 1980s the new fire
alarm system in my hangar had a tendency to go off on hot days for no
reason. We would all run and push the helicopters out to a safe distance
manually, the fire department would send equipment and there was no
fire. After a week of this the base fire chief had us turn the alarm off
whenever the hangar during the hotter times of the day. See? There are
valid reasons.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan Luke]

"Jose" wrote:

> Very neat, very tidy, very hard to disprove.
>
> (for the record, I do not believe it, but it is still neat, tidy, and
> hard to disprove - the ideal conspiracy theory)

Just about anything is hard to DISprove--if not impossible.

What about the Invisible Pink Elephant that lives in your house?
Probably put there by the Bush administration to mind-control you into
supporting the Iraq war.

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

Because - and this is important - they have to TEST the damned things on
a regular basis. That's why they *have* test modes. And they test them
in the day (because that's when the people doing the testing are
working) and they test them in the morning (because that gives them the
whole rest of the day to find and fix problems).

[The Whole Truth]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:17:51 GMT, Jose > wrote:

>Yanno... the puzzle that I have is this:
>
>The two theories vying for contention are
>Theory 1: Terrorists hijacked commercial airliners and flew them into
>the WTC and the Pentagon (and a field in Pennsylvania), presumably to
>terrorize the US.
>
>Theory 2: There were =no= airliners involved (since it would be
>impossible for terrorists to fly commercial airplanes),

Given the training and certified instrument rated pilot rating of at least one
of the hijackers, it's entirely within the realm of possibility for them to have
taken control of the planes and flew them into the buildings. Hell, I could
have done it and I'm not even a licensed pilot.

Finding New York City from West Virginia is as simple as flying East to the
coast and then following it North, once there I could easily have seen the
building from 10+ miles away in the perfect weather that day. As long as I
didn't try anything too radical with the yoke (like an Immelman, for instance) I
wouldn't have had any trouble lining the jet up with the building and just
flying straight into it. It's not like I've got to reconfigure the controls for
takeoff or landing or worry about little things like efficient fuel useage, air
travel corridors or even other planes, the FAA would clear the airspace for me.

>Now, given that destroying the buildings in any fashion involves loss of
>lots of innocent lives, if our government wanted to do this, why would
>it spare the lives of a few onboard the airplanes in order to fake the
>attack. Why not simply have the government commandeer the airplanes
>through its own agents, and fly them into the buildings?

One of the prevalent tinfoil hat theories is that the government flew the
planes into the buildings by remote control, letting them do it with their own
agents and not even requiring any of them to commit suicide at the same time.

They even claim that all the voice messages from the hijackers and phone calls
from the passengers onboard the planes were faked.

[The Whole Truth]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:55:19 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>TRUTH wrote:
>
>
>>>You said it was cloudy over WV.. How would that affect the ability to
>>>see the WTC?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It would affect their ability to fly from WV to NY
>
>No, it wouldn't.

Hell, how hard would it have been to fly due East until you saw the ocean,
then turned North. Sooner or later you're going to be over NYC. :)

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:
> mrtravel > wrote in news:EoxMf.25449$_S7.23208
> @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
>
>
>>TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>>How bout stopping the childish insults already? I *never* said it was
>>>cloudy above NYC.
>>
>>You said it was cloudy over WV.. How would that affect the ability to
>>see the WTC?
>>
>
>
>
> It would affect their ability to fly from WV to NY

In what way?
Did they not know what direction NYC is from WV?

[mrtravel]

TRUTH wrote:

> mrtravel > wrote in
> . com:
>
>
>>TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>>Let me clarify... Regardless of its effect on the fire, the point is
>>>that it was placed in test mode *on the morning of 9/11*.
>>
>>So? If there was no effect, then what difference does it make.
>>On the morning of 9/11, I suspect the firemen were more concerned with
>>WTC 1 and 2. If explosives were used to bring down WTC 1,2, and 7,
>>what difference would turning off the fire alarm make?
>>
>>
>
>
>
> The point is why would they put the alarm in test mode, on 9/11?

Why?
If the building is going to be blown up, as you said, how would having
the alarm in test mode help? WTC 1 and WTC 2 were collapsing, do you
think the people in WTC 7 were going to wait for an alarm?

[Pooh Bear]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Jose" wrote:
>
> > Very neat, very tidy, very hard to disprove.
> >
> > (for the record, I do not believe it, but it is still neat, tidy, and
> > hard to disprove - the ideal conspiracy theory)
>
> Just about anything is hard to DISprove--if not impossible.
>
> What about the Invisible Pink Elephant that lives in your house?
> Probably put there by the Bush administration to mind-control you into
> supporting the Iraq war.

Did the Pink Elephant arrive in a Black Helicopter ?

Graham

[mrtravel]

Pooh Bear wrote:

>
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>
>>"Jose" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Very neat, very tidy, very hard to disprove.
>>>
>>>(for the record, I do not believe it, but it is still neat, tidy, and
>>>hard to disprove - the ideal conspiracy theory)
>>
>>Just about anything is hard to DISprove--if not impossible.
>>
>>What about the Invisible Pink Elephant that lives in your house?
>>Probably put there by the Bush administration to mind-control you into
>>supporting the Iraq war.
>
>
> Did the Pink Elephant arrive in a Black Helicopter ?
>
> Graham
>

Wasn't Danny Glover in that movie?

[khobar]

"mrtravel" > wrote in message
. com...
> Pooh Bear wrote:
>
> >
> > Dan Luke wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Jose" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Very neat, very tidy, very hard to disprove.
> >>>
> >>>(for the record, I do not believe it, but it is still neat, tidy, and
> >>>hard to disprove - the ideal conspiracy theory)
> >>
> >>Just about anything is hard to DISprove--if not impossible.
> >>
> >>What about the Invisible Pink Elephant that lives in your house?
> >>Probably put there by the Bush administration to mind-control you into
> >>supporting the Iraq war.
> >
> >
> > Did the Pink Elephant arrive in a Black Helicopter ?
> >
> > Graham
> >
>
> Wasn't Danny Glover in that movie?

Danny Glover is just another socialist idiot.

Paul Nixon

[Toni Virta]

"The Whole Truth" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:49:40 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

> >>>WTC 7 was a steel framed building and housed the mayor's 13
million
> >>>dollar command bunker. It is theorized that this bunker was
used to
> >>>control the Towers' demolitions (it was dust proof), and
therefore
> >>>needed to be destroyed for any evidence it may have.
> >>
> >
> >It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris.
>
> That's my entire point. What would have been the plan for WTC-7
if *NO DEBRIS
> HAD HIT IT*? Blow up a completely intact building for nebulous
reasons you say
> exist but won't state? Don't blow up the building and have tens
of thousands of
> pounds of explosives found inside the gutted building? You do
know that you
> have to gut a building before you perform a controlled demolition
on it, right?
>

Exactly. And the other obvious question is why on God's green earth
would the HQ of demolitions be placed so near ground zero? Wouldn't
it be more logical to put it somewhere else, where all the eyes and
tv-cameras would not be pointed? Then the base would not be in
danger while the alleged demolitions take place AND they can
evacuate the place in silence and in an organized fashion without a
need to demolish the whole thing.

And as The Whole Truth said; what would have been done, if the plane
parts did not hit WTC-7? The "demolition" would have looked highly
suspicious had the building not been on fire for hours.

TVirta

[Pooh Bear]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> > Dan Luke wrote:
> >
> >> "Jose" wrote:
> >>
> >> > Very neat, very tidy, very hard to disprove.
> >> >
> >> > (for the record, I do not believe it, but it is still neat, tidy,
> and
> >> > hard to disprove - the ideal conspiracy theory)
> >>
> >> Just about anything is hard to DISprove--if not impossible.
> >>
> >> What about the Invisible Pink Elephant that lives in your house?
> >> Probably put there by the Bush administration to mind-control you
> into
> >> supporting the Iraq war.
> >
> > Did the Pink Elephant arrive in a Black Helicopter ?
>
> Why, you misiing that one in your planespotters logbook?

You know, that's actually pretty close to being humorous ! ;-)

You driving Buses or Boeings these days ?

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

TRUTH wrote:

> mrtravel > wrote in
> et:
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> In that video, he writes with his right hand, when the FBI's website
> >> says he's left handed.
> >> He wears a gold ring, which is forbidden in Islam.
> >
> > Going to strip shows is forbidden too, correct?
> > That didn't stop some of the hijackers from going.
>
> That clearly demonstates that those muslims were not religious. Would a
> religious muslim terrorist go to a strip bar, and then kill himself for
> Allah?

I think you fail to understand the strange ways in which religion works.


> > Do you also think Islam is about killing innocent people?
>
> There are different ways of interpreting the Koran. Muslim terrorists
> "see it" as justifying murder. But must Muslims are peaceful people

Most doesn't equal all. It only needs a few hotheads to cause trouble.

Graham

[TRUTH]

The Whole Truth > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:49:40 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>
>>>>The leaseholder of WTC 7 had been in posession
>>>>of the lease since the building was built in 1987. Six weeks before
>>>>9/11 he bought a lease on the entire WTC complex. I don't know the
>>>>legality, but this site may help explain:
>>>>http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2002/06/07/15925.htm
>>>
>>> Your point? You know even know if it's relevant but you throw it
>>> out anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>>WTC 7 needed to be destoyed for legal reasons.
>
> What exactly were those reasons?
>
> By the way, your link is completely off point. It says that the
> company that
> borrowed hundreds of millions of dollards to buy WTC-7 is probably
> going to have to use some of the insurance money to pay the people who
> loaned them the money because while Silverstein does have a large
> amount of money lying around, it probably doesn't amount to what they
> still owed on the building.
>
> It's no different than if your house burns down and you use the
> insurance
> money to pay off the mortgage that your bank holds. People don't kill
> 3,000 people and destroy a national landmark to get out of a mortgage,
> they either foreclose and let the bank have the property or just sell
> the property and pay off the bank with the proceeds.
>
>>>>Also, WTC 7 housed numerous government agencies. Paper documents,
>>>>such as those from ENRON, were destroyed when the building was
>>>>"pulled".
>>>
>>> Only a moron would blow up an office building they own to destroy
>>> their own
>>> documents instead of simply shredding them. Only a complete idiot
>>> would claim that an agency capable of secretly blowing up a national
>>> landmark and killing 3,000 people are morons.
>>
>>You are right. And that's why there was much more involved than that.
>
> Feel free to tell us exactly what was involved since the explanation
> you
> offered was about the stupid reason I've ever heard for the
> government's involvement in the 9/11 conspiracy.
>
> You keep saying "THERE'S MORE, THERE'S MORE", yet you haven't even
> started telling us what this "more" is yet.
>
>>>>WTC 7 was a steel framed building and housed the mayor's 13 million
>>>>dollar command bunker. It is theorized that this bunker was used to
>>>>control the Towers' demolitions (it was dust proof), and therefore
>>>>needed to be destroyed for any evidence it may have.
>>>
>>> So not only was it the federal government, the city of New York
>>> was involved?
>>> We're talking hundreds of people, if not thousands; to do something
>>> that would have been just as easily accomplished from inside a
>>> portable trailer with a 10 man crew.
>>
>>
>>Not nessarily the "federal government", or "the city of New York" as a
>>unit, but individual people from within. I can assure you, the entire
>>NYC Police Dept and the entire NYC Fire Dept knows that 9/11 was an
>>inside job. But they are forbidden to discuss it, as per gag orders.
>
> If you think the entire NYPD and NYFD are going to ignore the murder
> of 3,000
> of their friends, family and co-workers simply due to a gag order you
> are without a doubt the stupidest individual I've met on the entire
> Internet. And I've seen a loon who claims to check his daughters for
> an intact hymen after their dates and that his masturbation caused his
> testicular cancer. I'm amazed that someone so lacking in the capacity
> for rational thought can even operate a computer well enough to post
> this idiocy.
>
>>The major
>>has publically stated that he was warned that the South Tower was
>>going to collapse. This notification came from the OEM. Why did they
>>tell him and not the firefighters in the buildings?
>
> Because there were no firefighters in WTC-7, they were rather busy
> elsewhere.
>
>>the NY Times sued the City and won (after a year long court battle).
>>The Times published them, and it is clear that FDNY personnel saw
>>flashes and heard explosions that they compared to controlled
>>demoltions. See this page for a collaboration:
>>http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
>
> Being compared to something does not mean that it is the thing being
> compared
> to. Why don't you read the entire transcripts rather than the few
> select highlighted lines that you think prove something. Here, I'll
> select a few passages you seem to have missed entirely.
>
> "I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the
> building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been
> electrical explosions, it could have been whatever." Assistant
> Commissioner Stephen Gregory
>
> "Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember
> that." Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick
>
> "I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer
> of the building. I assume now that was either windows starting to
> collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come
> down" Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick
>
>>> You still haven't offered one shred of evidence as to how the
>>> government knew
>>> in advance that a building not in the same physical area as the
>>> impacts would be hit by large pieces of debris and set on fire for
>>> half a day with the fire unable to be controlled by the NYFD due to
>>> 20 inch water main ruptured by falling debris.
>>>
>>
>>It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris.
>
> That's my entire point. What would have been the plan for WTC-7 if
> *NO DEBRIS
> HAD HIT IT*? Blow up a completely intact building for nebulous
> reasons you say exist but won't state? Don't blow up the building and
> have tens of thousands of pounds of explosives found inside the gutted
> building? You do know that you have to gut a building before you
> perform a controlled demolition on it, right?
>
>>And the only reason those
>>fires spread in the first place, was because the WTC fire alarm was
>>put in "test mode" at 6:47 AM on 9/11, effectively disabling it.
>
> The only reason those fires spread in the first place was that there
> was no
> water supply to the sprinkler heads due to a ruptured 20 inch water
> main in the street. The sprinklers would *AUTOMATICALLY* activate in
> the event of a fire. The only thing the fire alarm in "test mode" did
> was fail to send an alert signal to the monitoring company that a fire
> was detected. Given that there were several thousand fire fighters on
> the site when it did catch on fire, that signal would have been rather
> superfluous.
>




People are going to believe what they want to believe. If namecalling
****heads like you are gonna refute common sense and logic just to prove
your absurd bull**** 9/11 version correct (the government's version),
then that is your prerogative.. I have given you name calling assholes
enough information to look into it yourselves. I have no time, nor the
care, to be communcating with you ****ing idiots anyone. If you want to
know why this country is going down hill, take a look in a mirror, and
you'll see why. You insult me? I'm gonna insult you. You ****ing idiots
use insults as part of your way to communicate, therefore I will
retaliate in the only way that you will understand. You want to have an
intelligent discussion? Fine. Shut your ****ing trap with the insults.
But right now, my free time is up, and I am done in here.

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> The Whole Truth > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 20:49:40 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:
>>
>>>>> The leaseholder of WTC 7 had been in posession
>>>>> of the lease since the building was built in 1987. Six weeks before
>>>>> 9/11 he bought a lease on the entire WTC complex. I don't know the
>>>>> legality, but this site may help explain:
>>>>> http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/east/2002/06/07/15925.htm
>>>> Your point? You know even know if it's relevant but you throw it
>>>> out anyway.
>>>
>>>
>>> WTC 7 needed to be destoyed for legal reasons.
>> What exactly were those reasons?
>>
>> By the way, your link is completely off point. It says that the
>> company that
>> borrowed hundreds of millions of dollards to buy WTC-7 is probably
>> going to have to use some of the insurance money to pay the people who
>> loaned them the money because while Silverstein does have a large
>> amount of money lying around, it probably doesn't amount to what they
>> still owed on the building.
>>
>> It's no different than if your house burns down and you use the
>> insurance
>> money to pay off the mortgage that your bank holds. People don't kill
>> 3,000 people and destroy a national landmark to get out of a mortgage,
>> they either foreclose and let the bank have the property or just sell
>> the property and pay off the bank with the proceeds.
>>
>>>>> Also, WTC 7 housed numerous government agencies. Paper documents,
>>>>> such as those from ENRON, were destroyed when the building was
>>>>> "pulled".
>>>> Only a moron would blow up an office building they own to destroy
>>>> their own
>>>> documents instead of simply shredding them. Only a complete idiot
>>>> would claim that an agency capable of secretly blowing up a national
>>>> landmark and killing 3,000 people are morons.
>>> You are right. And that's why there was much more involved than that.
>> Feel free to tell us exactly what was involved since the explanation
>> you
>> offered was about the stupid reason I've ever heard for the
>> government's involvement in the 9/11 conspiracy.
>>
>> You keep saying "THERE'S MORE, THERE'S MORE", yet you haven't even
>> started telling us what this "more" is yet.
>>
>>>>> WTC 7 was a steel framed building and housed the mayor's 13 million
>>>>> dollar command bunker. It is theorized that this bunker was used to
>>>>> control the Towers' demolitions (it was dust proof), and therefore
>>>>> needed to be destroyed for any evidence it may have.
>>>> So not only was it the federal government, the city of New York
>>>> was involved?
>>>> We're talking hundreds of people, if not thousands; to do something
>>>> that would have been just as easily accomplished from inside a
>>>> portable trailer with a 10 man crew.
>>>
>>> Not nessarily the "federal government", or "the city of New York" as a
>>> unit, but individual people from within. I can assure you, the entire
>>> NYC Police Dept and the entire NYC Fire Dept knows that 9/11 was an
>>> inside job. But they are forbidden to discuss it, as per gag orders.
>> If you think the entire NYPD and NYFD are going to ignore the murder
>> of 3,000
>> of their friends, family and co-workers simply due to a gag order you
>> are without a doubt the stupidest individual I've met on the entire
>> Internet. And I've seen a loon who claims to check his daughters for
>> an intact hymen after their dates and that his masturbation caused his
>> testicular cancer. I'm amazed that someone so lacking in the capacity
>> for rational thought can even operate a computer well enough to post
>> this idiocy.
>>
>>> The major
>>> has publically stated that he was warned that the South Tower was
>>> going to collapse. This notification came from the OEM. Why did they
>>> tell him and not the firefighters in the buildings?
>> Because there were no firefighters in WTC-7, they were rather busy
>> elsewhere.
>>
>>> the NY Times sued the City and won (after a year long court battle).
>>> The Times published them, and it is clear that FDNY personnel saw
>>> flashes and heard explosions that they compared to controlled
>>> demoltions. See this page for a collaboration:
>>> http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820
>> Being compared to something does not mean that it is the thing being
>> compared
>> to. Why don't you read the entire transcripts rather than the few
>> select highlighted lines that you think prove something. Here, I'll
>> select a few passages you seem to have missed entirely.
>>
>> "I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the
>> building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been
>> electrical explosions, it could have been whatever." Assistant
>> Commissioner Stephen Gregory
>>
>> "Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember
>> that." Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick
>>
>> "I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer
>> of the building. I assume now that was either windows starting to
>> collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come
>> down" Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick
>>
>>>> You still haven't offered one shred of evidence as to how the
>>>> government knew
>>>> in advance that a building not in the same physical area as the
>>>> impacts would be hit by large pieces of debris and set on fire for
>>>> half a day with the fire unable to be controlled by the NYFD due to
>>>> 20 inch water main ruptured by falling debris.
>>>>
>>> It was pure luck that WTC 7 got hit by debris.
>> That's my entire point. What would have been the plan for WTC-7 if
>> *NO DEBRIS
>> HAD HIT IT*? Blow up a completely intact building for nebulous
>> reasons you say exist but won't state? Don't blow up the building and
>> have tens of thousands of pounds of explosives found inside the gutted
>> building? You do know that you have to gut a building before you
>> perform a controlled demolition on it, right?
>>
>>> And the only reason those
>>> fires spread in the first place, was because the WTC fire alarm was
>>> put in "test mode" at 6:47 AM on 9/11, effectively disabling it.
>> The only reason those fires spread in the first place was that there
>> was no
>> water supply to the sprinkler heads due to a ruptured 20 inch water
>> main in the street. The sprinklers would *AUTOMATICALLY* activate in
>> the event of a fire. The only thing the fire alarm in "test mode" did
>> was fail to send an alert signal to the monitoring company that a fire
>> was detected. Given that there were several thousand fire fighters on
>> the site when it did catch on fire, that signal would have been rather
>> superfluous.
>>
>
>
>
>
> People are going to believe what they want to believe. If namecalling
> ****heads like you are gonna refute common sense and logic just to prove
> your absurd bull**** 9/11 version correct (the government's version),
> then that is your prerogative.. I have given you name calling assholes
> enough information to look into it yourselves. I have no time, nor the
> care, to be communcating with you ****ing idiots anyone. If you want to
> know why this country is going down hill, take a look in a mirror, and
> you'll see why. You insult me? I'm gonna insult you. You ****ing idiots
> use insults as part of your way to communicate, therefore I will
> retaliate in the only way that you will understand. You want to have an
> intelligent discussion? Fine. Shut your ****ing trap with the insults.
> But right now, my free time is up, and I am done in here.

Translation: "truth" has discovered an important element to his
conspiracy fantasy was in error so he has to resort to a string of
vulgarity followed by accusing others of insulting him [translator's
note: no insults appear on this page from anyone else] and an admission
of failure in the end and he slinks off with his tail between his legs.

Sound bite for the news: "truth" threw a tantrum.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Peter Twydell]

In message >, TRUTH
> writes
<snip>
>
>
>People are going to believe what they want to believe. If namecalling
>****heads like you are gonna refute common sense and logic just to prove
>your absurd bull**** 9/11 version correct (the government's version),
>then that is your prerogative.. I have given you name calling assholes
>enough information to look into it yourselves. I have no time, nor the
>care, to be communcating with you ****ing idiots anyone. If you want to
>know why this country is going down hill, take a look in a mirror, and
>you'll see why. You insult me? I'm gonna insult you. You ****ing idiots
>use insults as part of your way to communicate, therefore I will
>retaliate in the only way that you will understand. You want to have an
>intelligent discussion? Fine. Shut your ****ing trap with the insults.
>But right now, my free time is up, and I am done in here.


Promise?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

(snipped)

> People are going to believe what they want to believe. If namecalling
> ****heads like you are gonna refute common sense and logic just to prove
> your absurd bull**** 9/11 version correct (the government's version),
> then that is your prerogative.. I have given you name calling assholes
> enough information to look into it yourselves. I have no time, nor the
> care, to be communcating with you ****ing idiots anyone. If you want to
> know why this country is going down hill, take a look in a mirror, and
> you'll see why. You insult me? I'm gonna insult you. You ****ing idiots
> use insults as part of your way to communicate, therefore I will
> retaliate in the only way that you will understand. You want to have an
> intelligent discussion? Fine. Shut your ****ing trap with the insults.
> But right now, my free time is up, and I am done in here.

Translation: "The men in the white coats, with the nets and the
nicely-fitting jacket with the fashionable straps on it are at the front
door." Do they also have a good brace of tranq darts with them?

Further translation: "Everybody in this NG, and in other NGs where
knowledgeable people congregate is crazy and *I* am the only sane one
here!"

More translation: "Nobody believes that the monsters under my bed are
going to kill me and then eat me!"

C'mon, "TRUTH," go quietly -- they are going to take you away, to the
*HAPPY* farm!

[george]

TRUTH wrote:
snip
>
> People are going to believe what they want to believe. If namecalling
> ****heads like you are gonna refute common sense and logic just to prove
> your absurd bull**** 9/11 version correct (the government's version),
> then that is your prerogative.. I have given you name calling assholes
> enough information to look into it yourselves. I have no time, nor the
> care, to be communcating with you ****ing idiots anyone. If you want to
> know why this country is going down hill, take a look in a mirror, and
> you'll see why. You insult me? I'm gonna insult you. You ****ing idiots
> use insults as part of your way to communicate, therefore I will
> retaliate in the only way that you will understand. You want to have an
> intelligent discussion? Fine. Shut your ****ing trap with the insults.
> But right now, my free time is up, and I am done in here.

Promises!
All we get are promises.
And now back to flying and talking about flying.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:44:38 GMT, TRUTH > wrote:

>You want to have an
>intelligent discussion? Fine.

Sorry kid, the second you claimed that the entire NYPD and NYFD knew about the
conspiracy and ignored the deaths of their friends, family members and coworkers
simply because of a "gag order" you permanently eliminated yourself from ever
being capable of conducting an intelligent discussion.

[Johnny Bravo]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:07:51 GMT, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:

>In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>(snipped)
>
>> People are going to believe what they want to believe. If namecalling
>> ****heads like you are gonna refute common sense and logic just to prove
>> your absurd bull**** 9/11 version correct (the government's version),
>> then that is your prerogative.. I have given you name calling assholes
>> enough information to look into it yourselves. I have no time, nor the
>> care, to be communcating with you ****ing idiots anyone. If you want to
>> know why this country is going down hill, take a look in a mirror, and
>> you'll see why. You insult me? I'm gonna insult you. You ****ing idiots
>> use insults as part of your way to communicate, therefore I will
>> retaliate in the only way that you will understand. You want to have an
>> intelligent discussion? Fine. Shut your ****ing trap with the insults.
>> But right now, my free time is up, and I am done in here.
>
>Translation: "The men in the white coats, with the nets and the
>nicely-fitting jacket with the fashionable straps on it are at the front
>door." Do they also have a good brace of tranq darts with them?
>
>Further translation: "Everybody in this NG, and in other NGs where
>knowledgeable people congregate is crazy and *I* am the only sane one
>here!"
>
>More translation: "Nobody believes that the monsters under my bed are
>going to kill me and then eat me!"
>
>C'mon, "TRUTH," go quietly -- they are going to take you away, to the
>*HAPPY* farm!

Even more translation (based on his earlier comment),
"I'm more heroic than a police officer or a fire fighter, only *I* have the
courage to tell the "truth"."

[Johnny Bravo]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 04:55:43 GMT, mrtravel > wrote:

>>
>> It would affect their ability to fly from WV to NY
>
>In what way?
>Did they not know what direction NYC is from WV?

Apparently that's secret knowledge that you only learn after you get your IFR
rating.

[Dan]

Johnny Bravo wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:07:51 GMT, Orval Fairbairn >
> wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> TRUTH > wrote:
>>
>> (snipped)
>>
>>> People are going to believe what they want to believe. If namecalling
>>> ****heads like you are gonna refute common sense and logic just to prove
>>> your absurd bull**** 9/11 version correct (the government's version),
>>> then that is your prerogative.. I have given you name calling assholes
>>> enough information to look into it yourselves. I have no time, nor the
>>> care, to be communcating with you ****ing idiots anyone. If you want to
>>> know why this country is going down hill, take a look in a mirror, and
>>> you'll see why. You insult me? I'm gonna insult you. You ****ing idiots
>>> use insults as part of your way to communicate, therefore I will
>>> retaliate in the only way that you will understand. You want to have an
>>> intelligent discussion? Fine. Shut your ****ing trap with the insults.
>>> But right now, my free time is up, and I am done in here.
>> Translation: "The men in the white coats, with the nets and the
>> nicely-fitting jacket with the fashionable straps on it are at the front
>> door." Do they also have a good brace of tranq darts with them?
>>
>> Further translation: "Everybody in this NG, and in other NGs where
>> knowledgeable people congregate is crazy and *I* am the only sane one
>> here!"
>>
>> More translation: "Nobody believes that the monsters under my bed are
>> going to kill me and then eat me!"
>>
>> C'mon, "TRUTH," go quietly -- they are going to take you away, to the
>> *HAPPY* farm!
>
> Even more translation (based on his earlier comment),
> "I'm more heroic than a police officer or a fire fighter, only *I* have the
> courage to tell the "truth"."

He also said in another thread he had to hide his identity because
he was afraid of retribution. Poor child keeps contradicting himself.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[george]

mrtravel wrote:
> TRUTH wrote:
>
> >>
> >>How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there was
> >>no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in clear
> >>skies does not require an instrument rating.
> >>
> >>Graham
>
> > At 30,000 feet it does
>
> But they went lower, didn't they?
>
> At 30000 feet, do you think it would be possible to figure out where
> Manhattan is, on a clear day? If you spend some time looking at maps, it
> wouldn't be that difficult.
Doofus doesn't realise the slant view range from 10,000 to 30,000 feet
would make it easy to pick up landmarks like large cities...

[Stan de SD]

[Pooh Bear]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> > Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> >
> >> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > Dan Luke wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jose" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Very neat, very tidy, very hard to disprove.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > (for the record, I do not believe it, but it is still neat,
> tidy,
> >> and
> >> >> > hard to disprove - the ideal conspiracy theory)
> >> >>
> >> >> Just about anything is hard to DISprove--if not impossible.
> >> >>
> >> >> What about the Invisible Pink Elephant that lives in your house?
> >> >> Probably put there by the Bush administration to mind-control you
> >> into
> >> >> supporting the Iraq war.
> >> >
> >> > Did the Pink Elephant arrive in a Black Helicopter ?
> >>
> >> Why, you misiing that one in your planespotters logbook?
> >
> > You know, that's actually pretty close to being humorous ! ;-)
> >
> > You driving Buses or Boeings these days ?
>
> I drive lots of things, wannabe.
>
> unlike you.
>
> Trying the suckup approach again, BTW?
>
> Bertie

Has it ever struck you that your 'netkopp' obsession has become a little
tired ?

Graham

[[email protected]]

I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and
why it is a physically provable fact that all of the damage done to the
Pentagon could not have occurred solely from a Boeing 757 impact, and
therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a
cover up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I
will only speak from my professional opinion.

I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including
structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge
explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).

The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around
handling the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to
near atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure of cruising
altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the
wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as
possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind.

If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the
speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the
wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far
of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high
speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would
crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the
structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely.
The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the
impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.

This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy,
impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous
wall with windows etc is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of
the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact,
and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.

We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer
wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9
feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly
perfectly cut circular hole in a reinforced concrete wall, with no
subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. If we are to believe that
some how this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this final wall. It
is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean
cut
circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine

>> see pictures: http://images.google.com/images?q=pentagon%20hole

because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall
fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with
an explosive shape charge. An explosive shape charge, or cutting charge
is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of
the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You
essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is
referred
to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or
the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a
missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind
the initial shape charge to enter what ever has been penetrated.

I do not know what happened on 911, I do not know how politics works in
this country, I can not explain why the main stream media does not
report on the problems with the 911 Commission. But I am an engineer,
and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges
are used to "cut" through materials.

I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757
incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light
towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft
(which
I also feel is impossible,) the fact that the two main engines were
never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has
direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a
gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release.

You can call me a tin hat, crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say
from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused solely
by a 757.


====

u2r2h speculation:

The shaped charge was between the tree and the wall.
It was timed to conincide with the impact.
Its task was to kill the engineers inside who were
running the show... killing witnesses.
if you don't believe, check the job descriptions
of the victims inside.

[Chad Irby]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine
>
> >> see pictures: http://images.google.com/images?q=pentagon%20hole
>
> because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall
> fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.

Unless, as the contractors have already told the world, that hole was
punched out by a backhoe after the impact.

<http://www.rense.com/general63/pmm.htm>

This was through one of the links from your URL above.

[mrtravel]

wrote:
>
> How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with
> an explosive shape charge. An explosive shape charge, or cutting charge
> is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of
> the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy.

And, they actually were able to hit the exact spot in the wall with a
757 with pinpoint accuracy.

[cjcampbell]

wrote:

>
> I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757
> incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light
> towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft
> (which
> I also feel is impossible,) the fact that the two main engines were
> never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has
> direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a
> gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release.
>
> You can call me a tin hat, crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say
> from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused solely
> by a 757.

That would have been one heck of a shaped charge. It would have had to
have been as big as, um, as big as... a 757. Secretly installing an
invisible shaped charge of that size without anyone noticing was quite
an accomplishment. The Pentagon has security people who walk around the
building all of the time. It is difficult to believe that all these low
level security types would have been in on the conspiracy.

Or maybe you subscribe to the 'missile' theory. Trouble is, missiles
are not shaped charges. The kind of damage done to the Pentagon would
require at the least a ground penetrating fuel air bomb, which the US
did not have at the time and which has to be launched from a C-130. Of
course, a 757 is a ready made fuel air bomb. And missiles do not have
jet engine fans and aircraft landing gear such as you see in photos
both inside and outside the Pentagon. Neither do bombs.

And how do you explain how the aircraft parts got there? All the photos
there show an intact Pentagon and immediately after a big hole with
lots of pieces of what is obviously a 757. Are you suggesting that they
were trucked in?

There was no nice, neat hole. A 757 is not a beer can. It weighs more
than 275,000 lbs and carries more than 11,000 gallons of fuel. That is
a lot of kinetic energy and explosive energy which, in a plane crash,
is all directed forward to a small point of impact. For all practical
purposes, it might as well be a shaped charge. What, did you think that
the airplane would make an airplane shaped hole, kind of like Wile E.
Coyote makes a coyote shaped hole when he runs through a wall? Real
life ain't the cartoons.

Who says the light towers did not damage the aircraft? There were
aircraft parts all over the place.

The two main engines were recovered. Who says they weren't? There are
photos of at least one of them lying inside the outer ring of the
Pentagon. The photos were taken almost immediately after the crash.

The 757 did not strike the Pentagon directly. The terrorists missed,
landing short of the target. But the plane did skid along the ground
and the trench is clearly visible in the photos.

What I don't understand is why the conspiracy theorists think that
anyone is fooled by their concentration on just one or two of the
photos available while ignoring all the rest that disprove their
theories.

I have still yet to hear a plausible explanation of how someone is
supposed to have accomplished a controlled demolition of the WTC
towers. There are only a very few businesses in all of America that
could do it. It is very expensive. The government does not have the
capability or expertise. Demolition companies require enormous work
crews working round the clock for months to demolish such a large
building. Big holes have to be drilled in the walls at every corner and
every floor and at regular intervals around the floor. Structural
supports have to be removed. The explosive charges are highly visible
with wires coming out of them -- there is no mistaking what they are.
No one could have gone to work at the WTC every day without noticing
all this activity. Suggestions that thousands of people did so every
day for months without noticing that anything unusual was going on are
just ridiculous. It is difficult to picture all these lawyers,
international traders, secretaries, etc., all being in on the secret
and being willing to sacrifice their own lives for some government
conspiracy, or even allowing all this construction and demolition work
to continue in their offices without complaint or even mild curiousity
what is going on.

[Tank Fixer]

In article . com>,
on 2 Mar 2006 15:17:05 -0800,
attempted to say .....

While you may be an engineer you seem to know nothing of how a shaped charge
works.

It really needs to be in contact with the surface of the target to work best.

And yes, you are a nutcase

>
> I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and
> why it is a physically provable fact that all of the damage done to the
> Pentagon could not have occurred solely from a Boeing 757 impact, and
> therefore the 9/11 Commission report is not complete and arguably a
> cover up. I will not speculate about what may have been covered up, I
> will only speak from my professional opinion.
>
> I am a Mechanical Engineer who spent many years in Aerospace, including
> structural design, and in the design, and use of shaped charge
> explosives (like those that would be used in missile warheads).
>
> The structural design of a large aircraft like a 757 is based around
> handling the structural loads of a pressurized vessel, the cabin, to
> near atmospheric conditions while at the lower pressure of cruising
> altitudes, and to handle the structural and aerodynamic loads of the
> wings, control surfaces, and the fuel load. It is made as light as
> possible, and is certainly not made to handle impact loads of any kind.
>
> If a 757 were to strike a reinforced concrete wall, the energy from the
> speed and weight of the aircraft will be transferred, in part into the
> wall, and to the structural failure of the aircraft. It is not too far
> of an analogy as if you had an empty aluminum can, traveling at high
> speed hitting a reinforced concrete wall. The aluminum can would
> crumple (the proper engineering term is buckle) and, depending on the
> structural integrity of the wall, crack, crumble or fail completely.
> The wall failure would not be a neat little hole, as the energy of the
> impact would be spread throughout the wall by the reinforcing steel.
>
> This is difficult to model accurately, as any high speed, high energy,
> impact of a complex structure like an aircraft, into a discontinuous
> wall with windows etc is difficult. What is known is that nearly all of
> the energy from this event would be dissipated in the initial impact,
> and subsequent buckling of the aircraft.
>
> We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer
> wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9
> feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly
> perfectly cut circular hole in a reinforced concrete wall, with no
> subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. If we are to believe that
> some how this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this final wall. It
> is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean
> cut
> circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine
>
> >> see pictures: http://images.google.com/images?q=pentagon%20hole
>
> because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall
> fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.
>
> How do you create a nice clean hole in a reinforced concrete wall? with
> an explosive shape charge. An explosive shape charge, or cutting charge
> is used in various military warhead devices. You design the geometry of
> the explosive charge so that you create a focused line of energy. You
> essentially focus nearly all of the explosive energy in what is
> referred
> to as a jet. You use this jet to cut and penetrate armor on a tank, or
> the walls of a bunker. The signature is clear and unmistakable. In a
> missile, the explosive charge is circular to allow the payload behind
> the initial shape charge to enter what ever has been penetrated.
>
> I do not know what happened on 911, I do not know how politics works in
> this country, I can not explain why the main stream media does not
> report on the problems with the 911 Commission. But I am an engineer,
> and I know what happens in high speed impacts, and how shaped charges
> are used to "cut" through materials.
>
> I have not addressed several other major gaps in the Pentagon/757
> incident. The fact that this aircraft somehow ripped several light
> towers clean out of the ground without any damage to the aircraft
> (which
> I also feel is impossible,) the fact that the two main engines were
> never recovered from the wreckage, and the fact that our government has
> direct video coverage of the flight path, and impact, from at least a
> gas station and hotel, which they have refused to release.
>
> You can call me a tin hat, crazy, conspiracy theory, etc, but I can say
> from my expertise that the damage at the Pentagon was not caused solely
> by a 757.

While you may be an engineer you seem to know nothing of how a shaped charge
works.

It really needs to be in contact with the surface of the target to work best.


>
>
> ====
>
> u2r2h speculation:
>
> The shaped charge was between the tree and the wall.
> It was timed to conincide with the impact.
> Its task was to kill the engineers inside who were
> running the show... killing witnesses.
> if you don't believe, check the job descriptions
> of the victims inside.





--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

[Stan de SD]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11,

Remember when you ran away
And I got on my knees
And begged you not to leave
Because I'd go berserk

Well you left me anyhow
And then the days got worse and worse
And now you see I've gone
Completely out of my mind

And they're coming to take me away ha-haaa
They're coming to take me away ho ho hee hee ha haaa
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see those nice young men
In their clean white coats
And they're coming to take me away ha haaa

You thought it was a joke
And so you laughed
You laughed when I said
That losing you would make me flip my lid

Right? You know you laughed
I heard you laugh. You laughed
You laughed and laughed and then you left
But now you know I'm utterly mad

And they're coming to take me away ha haaa
They're coming to take me away ho ho hee hee ha haaa
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away ha haaa

I cooked your food
I cleaned your house
And this is how you pay me back
For all my kind unselfish, loving deeds
Ha! Well you just wait
They'll find you yet and when they do
They'll put you in the A.S.P.C.A.
You mangy mutt

And they're coming to take me away ha haaa
They're coming to take me away ha haaa ho ho hee hee
To the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see those nice young men
In their clean white coats

And they're coming to take me away
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away ha haaa!

[Stan de SD]

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> For all we know, Bush might have been speaking to the devil. Afterall
> John Buchanan says (paraphrased):
>
> "Bush does not take his philosophical foundation from the bible. Bush
> gets his inspiration from what he learned in Skull and Bones."
>
> Buchanan is the investigative journalist who found proof at the National
> Arhives and Library of Congress that Bush's grandfather, senator
> Presott, conspired to overthrow the constitution, assisisnate FDR, and
> turn the US in a Nazi camp, as is explained in this video:
> http://illuminati-news.com/Videos/keeping-it-in-the-family.wmv

Remember when you ran away
And I got on my knees
And begged you not to leave
Because I'd go berserk

Well you left me anyhow
And then the days got worse and worse
And now you see I've gone
Completely out of my mind

And they're coming to take me away ha-haaa
They're coming to take me away ho ho hee hee ha haaa
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see those nice young men
In their clean white coats
And they're coming to take me away ha haaa

You thought it was a joke
And so you laughed
You laughed when I said
That losing you would make me flip my lid

Right? You know you laughed
I heard you laugh. You laughed
You laughed and laughed and then you left
But now you know I'm utterly mad

And they're coming to take me away ha haaa
They're coming to take me away ho ho hee hee ha haaa
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away ha haaa

I cooked your food
I cleaned your house
And this is how you pay me back
For all my kind unselfish, loving deeds
Ha! Well you just wait
They'll find you yet and when they do
They'll put you in the A.S.P.C.A.
You mangy mutt

And they're coming to take me away ha haaa
They're coming to take me away ha haaa ho ho hee hee
To the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see those nice young men
In their clean white coats

And they're coming to take me away
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away ha haaa!

[Stan de SD]

"Dan" > wrote in message
news:gEoMf.53315$Ug4.38641@dukeread12...
> TRUTH wrote:
> > Dan > wrote in news:GeZLf.27395$Ug4.14004@dukeread12:
> >
> >> Pooh Bear wrote:
> >>> TRUTH wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>> How many times do you need to have it explained to you that there
> >>>> was
> >>>>>>> no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
> >>>>>>> clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Graham
> >>>>>> At 30,000 feet it does
> >>>>> No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
> >>>>> purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
> >>>>> be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
> >>>> Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
> >>>> know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
> >>>> to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
> >>> Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )
> >>>
> >>> http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/
> >>>
> >>> Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
> >>> instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
> >>> aircraft ?
> >>>
> >>> Graham
> >>>
> >>>
> >> He won't because the obvious has eluded him all along assuming he's
> >> ever flown in a commercial airliner. At 30 kilofeet on a clear day you
> >> can look down from your passenger seat and recognize landmarks. It
> >> would disturb him to have to actually admit another flaw in his
> >> "logic."
> >>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > oh give it up already!
>
> You can't see the ground from an airliner on a clear day like the
> rest of us? Why not?

I understand that a bad case of cranial rectumitis can result in severe
vision impairment... :O|

[Stan de SD]

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> Pooh Bear > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> >
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> >> > How many times do you need to have it explained to you that
> >> >> > there
> >> was
> >> >> > no need for any of them to be instrument trained ? Flying in
> >> >> > clear skies does not require an instrument rating.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Graham
> >> >>
> >> >> At 30,000 feet it does
> >> >
> >> > No. Take it from the experts. They are here in this group. The only
> >> > purpos of an instrument rating on a clear day at 30,000 feet is to
> >> > be legal. A terrorist couldn't care less.
> >>
> >> Okay, I admit I don't have the qualifications for this. What I do
> >> know is what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified
> >> to fly large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
> >
> > Can I please direct you here ? ( the federal aviation regulations )
> >
> > http://www.gofir.com/fars/part125/
> >
> > Perhaps you would be good enough to finally acknowledge that an
> > instrument rating is not a necessity just to simply fly a large
> > aircraft ?
> >
> > Graham
>
> Thanks Graham, I bookmarked that link. Will take a look later on

How about looking at it NOW before you continue to make a ****ing ass of
yourself?

[Stan de SD]

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
> :
>
> > Truth,
> >
> >> What I do know is
> >> what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly
> >> large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
> >>
> >
> > So what about the several tens of people equally qualified that tell
> > you here that your aeronautical engineer is wrong?
>
> They are going under the assumption that our government couldn't be
> invloved in 9/11

So what you're telling us is that you can't come to your conclusion unless
you STARTED from that assumption, right? Kook...

[Stan de SD]

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
...
> mrtravel > wrote in news:NGxMf.25458$_S7.22969
> @newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
>
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >
> >> Thomas Borchert > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >>
> >>>Truth,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>What I do know is
> >>>>what an aeronautical engineer has said. (He's also qualified to fly
> >>>>large aircralf.) I consider him an expert.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>So what about the several tens of people equally qualified that tell
> >>>you here that your aeronautical engineer is wrong?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> They are going under the assumption that our government couldn't be
> >> invloved in 9/11
> >
> > No, they are going under the assumption that it is possible to steer a
> > commercial airliner into big buildings. Even YOU made comments about
> > the Bush administration knowing about potential hijackings.
>
> I don't remember what your/my original point was in this part of the
> discussion, so it's hard to comment

Dude, you sound to mentally feeble to engage in discussion on issues you
know little about. How about giving this crap up and moving on to some Elvis
conspiracy, where you will be dealing with a group more in tune with your IQ
and educational level?

[Laurence Doering]

On 3 Mar 2006 12:55:44 -0800, > wrote:
> wrote:
>> I would like to give you my input as to the events on September 11, and
>> why it is a physically provable fact that all of the damage done to the
>> Pentagon could not have occurred solely from a Boeing 757 impact,
>
> oh, this will be good.
>
> [...]
>
>> We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer
>> wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9
>> feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly
>> perfectly cut circular hole in a reinforced concrete wall, with no
>> subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. If we are to believe that
>> some how this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this final wall. It
>> is physically impossible for the wall to have failed in a neat clean
>> cut circle, period. When I first saw this hole, a chill went down my spine
>
> Sorry, but this is just not so. "neat clean" was a feature of the
> nature of impact. By the time the mass was reaching those last
> walls, velocity was lower, but it was almost assuredly concentrated
> in a narrow channell.
>
>> >> see pictures: http://images.google.com/images?q=pentagon%20hole
>>
>> because I knew it was not possible to have a reinforced concrete wall
>> fail in this manner, it should have caved in, in some fashion.
>
> Sorry, the reinforcing frequently supports the otherwise heavily
> cracked (or crazed really) concrete. In this case I suspect there was
> some block involved although I'm not sure. That even tends to
> concentrate the area even more.

The Pentagon's exterior walls are not reinforced concrete. The building
does have reinforced concrete columns and floor slabs, but the wall between
the columns (which are spaced about 10 feet apart on the first floor) is
8 inches of brick infill with a 5-inch limestone facing over the brick.
See the Pentagon Building Performance Report [1] for details of the
construction.


ljd

[1] http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/art017.html