Re: the complete minute by minute timeline on 911

[Krztalizer]

>http://www.911timeline.net/
>
>This, in my personal view, is certainly from must read department.
>
>Michael

You've managed in one sentence to completely discredit anything that this
website might have to say.

[Krztalizer]

>
>> http://www.911timeline.net/
>
>What an amateurish conspiracy "expose"! Or is it a purposeful attempt to
>mislead the ignorant?

Look who posted it - that answers your question right there :)

[Michael Petukhov]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> >http://www.911timeline.net/
> >
> >This, in my personal view, is certainly from must read department.
> >
> >Michael
>
> You've managed in one sentence to completely discredit anything that this
> website might have to say.

Thanks. So according to you I am so prominent that I can in "one
sentence
to completely discredit anything that this website might have to say"?
BTW what do you mean under "this website might have to say"? This one?

Michael
--------------------------------

"...The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began
-- a huge seismic "spikes" marked the moment the greatest energy went
into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the
beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the
earth.

<seismogram>

These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data tends to lend credence
to the theory that perhaps a massive explosion(s) in the lowest level
of the basements where the supporting steel columns of the WTC met the
bedrock caused the collapses.

A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of
University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear
explosion appears on a seismograph.

The two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of
the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in
the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support
columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten
steel" were discovered. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70
feet below the surface, could explain how these crucial structural
supports failed.

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York,
told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World
Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the
debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc.
(CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, for consultation about removing the
debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the
controlled demolition and implosion of structures." Loizeaux, who
cleaned up the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived on
the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire
operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.
"Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These
incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts
of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The
molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the
rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was
also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously at 5:20 on September
11th.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2800°
Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius). Asked what could have caused such extreme
heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."

A way to prove that explosives had blasted the supporting steel
columns of the Twin Towers would be to examine fragments from them
among the debris for evidence of what metallurgists call "twinning".
While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite
numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers
involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.

The WTC debris was removed as fast as possible and no forensic
examination of the debris was permitted by the FBI or any other
government agency. Almost all the 300,000 tons of steel from the Twin
Towers was sold to New York scrap dealers and exported to places like
China and Korea as quickly as it could be loaded onto the ships,
thereby removing the evidence.

The magazine Fire Engineering, a respected journal of firefighting for
125 years, which publishes studies of catastrophic fires, criticized
the American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA investigations as "a
half-baked farce." Fire Engineering editor WiIliam A. Manning wrote in
the January issue: "...the structural damage from the planes and the
explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring
down the towers." Why is such there disparity in opinion within the
ranks of the fire-engineering community?

The immense clouds of dust and apparent disintegration of the 425,000
cubic yards of concrete of the World Trade Center cause me to question
the MIT account of events. Describing the ruins, television evangelist
Dr. Robert Schuller said that "...there was not a single block of
concrete in that rubble." One observer described the scene "as if some
high-energy disintegration beam or laser had been focused on the
towers and pulverized the concrete into minute particles of ash and
dust." The 110-ten-story World Trade Center reduced to dust by jet
fuel?

Dr. Michael Baden, New York state's chief forensic pathologist and an
expert in pathology said in September that most of the victims' bodies
should be identifiable, because the fires had not reached the 3200°F
for 30 minutes necessary to incinerate a body. At a November press
conference, Dr. Charles Hirsch, the chief medical examiner, told
grieving relatives that many bodies had been "vaporized." Are we to
believe that the people killed on 9/11 were "vaporized" at 1700° F?

The World Trade Center smoldering pits of molten steel burned for
exactly 100 days, despite the constant spray of water being applied.
The fires were finally reported extinguished on December 19.

Also, the collapses of the south tower at 9:59:04 took only 10 seconds
while the collapse of the north tower at 10:28:31 took only 9 seconds,
this is only slightly more than a free fall from the same height,
indicating that there was very little resistance. Yet the floors
themselves are quite robust, each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a
poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses
underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by
crumpling as one floor fell onto another. So how did both of the
towers fall so quickly?

In a newly release audio, two of New York City's Bravest are heard to
have made it up to where United Airlines Flight 175 impacted, the 78th
floor. Their voices where calm, they explain what was needed to help
the many causalities and to put out the two small fires that they
discovered. The type of fire that these two NYC Firemen describe does
not seem to jive at all with the inferno that is blamed for melting
the support beams and bringing down the first steel high-rise or
skyscraper ever.

Also, Louie Cacchioli 51, another NYC firefighter, assigned to Engine
47 in Harlem, has stated on September 11, 2001: "We were the first
ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking
firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position
to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think
there were bombs set in the building. I had just asked another
firefighter to stay with me, which was a good thing because we were
trapped inside the elevator and he had the tools to get out."

"There were probably 500 people trapped in the stairwell. It was mass
chaos. The power went out. It was dark. Everybody was screaming. We
had oxygen masks and we were giving people oxygen. Some of us made it
out and some of us didn't. I know of at least 30 firefighters who are
still missing. This is my 20th year. I am seriously considering
retiring. This might have done it."

When cameraman and Jules Naudet arrived at WTC tower one along with
other crews of NYC Firemen and entered the building's ground floor
lobby, they were to a one completely puzzled, actually astonished, to
find significant and widespread damage to the entire lobby area;
although not of a deep, structural kind. Moreover, nowhere was there
any indication whatsoever of an incendiary-type explosion or any kind
of fire in this area.

Yet the incredible number of blown-out windows and other extensive
though rather superficial damage throughout the lobby area was
profoundly perplexing to these experienced professional firefighters
in relation to the impact of the plane eighty stories above. As one
put it: "The lobby looked like the plane hit the lobby!"

Other reports, from firemen, have said that the FBI's offices in NYC
that were on the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors of the north tower of the
WTC were totally destroyed, presumably by bombs. ..."

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Michael Petukhov) wrote:

> Thanks. So according to you I am so prominent that I can in "one
> sentence to completely discredit anything that this website might
> have to say"?

This is not something to be thankful for.

It means you're a loud, persistent looney, who can't understand the
damage he causes to his own side.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Krztalizer]

>> You've managed in one sentence to completely discredit anything that this
>> website might have to say.
>
>Thanks. So according to you I am so prominent

I never said that. Your delusions of grandeur shouldn't include re-writing my
words into a sort of compliment - damn, you really ARE that stupid, aren't you?

>... that I can in "one
>sentence
>to completely discredit anything that this website might have to say"?

With your history of gullibility and narrow-minded nationalistic envy, yes,
whatever you agree with tends to automatically look discredited.

>BTW what do you mean under "this website might have to say"? This one?

What I meant is that if you quote a website, then its going to be a conspiracy
nutjob case that isn't worth reading - just like that one.

The towers didn't collapse from a bomb, idiot. Fifteen minutes before the
collapse, I started to get sick to my stomach and I told my wife that the first
tower was going to fall - I pointed at the structural distortion at the point
of the fire and could visualize the coming event with clarity. My wife thought
I was being overly dramatic, but I kept trying to explain what she was missing.
Minutes later, the first tower collapsed as hundreds of millions of people
watched, horrified. No bomb, Michael. If you had paid attention to the event
as it occurred instead of dancing in the streets celebrating the horror, you
might have noticed it yourself.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" > wrote in message
...
> (Steve Richter) wrote in
> om:
>
> > By my calculations, those F-15s were flying at a little less
> > than 600mph. ( 71 / 8 = 9 miles per minute * 60 = 540 mph ).
> > Could they have gunned it up to 900mph? At 900mph, they fly the
> > 153 miles from Otis to WTC in 10 minutes.
>
> Anyone in the forum qualified to answer this properly? Is it normal
> procedure for scramble fighters to cruise towards a target as
> dangerous as a hijacked airliner?
>

Prior to Sept 11 2001 there was no perceived danger from a
hijacked airliner.

Keith

[EB Jet]

On the West coast,after all that went on in N.Y. and PA and after all incoming
international flights were being diverted away from the U.S.,there was an
incident involving a Thai Airlines 747 inbound to San Francisco(around 10:00am
PST) that refused to divert to Mexico or Canada,claiming a low fuel state.Two
F-16's from the 144th FW,CA ANG based in Fresno were scrambled to intercept and
were cleared for max supersonic speed to make the intercept,which occured about
80nm off the CA coast..Not sure how fast they actually went to get to the 747
but their fuel state was enough for them to make the intercept,escort the 747
to SFO and recover in Fresno...F-16's were carrying 2 tanks,2xAIM-120's,and
2xAIM-9's..More here....
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2002/articles/oct_02/guard/index.html

[Michael Petukhov]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> >> You've managed in one sentence to completely discredit anything that this
> >> website might have to say.
> >
> >Thanks. So according to you I am so prominent
>
> I never said that. Your delusions of grandeur shouldn't include re-writing my
> words into a sort of compliment - damn, you really ARE that stupid, aren't you?

No Gordon I am not that stupid, as you migh think.

>
> >... that I can in "one
> >sentence
> >to completely discredit anything that this website might have to say"?
>

This is what you think, don't you? Just one stupid guys opinion,
no more nor less.

> With your history of gullibility and narrow-minded nationalistic envy, yes,
> whatever you agree with tends to automatically look discredited.
>
> >BTW what do you mean under "this website might have to say"? This one?
>
> What I meant is that if you quote a website, then its going to be a conspiracy
> nutjob case that isn't worth reading - just like that one.
>
> The towers didn't collapse from a bomb, idiot.

This what you idiot want ot believe in. How about seismic data?
how about 10 sec collaps times which is approximately free fall time
from WTC altitude? How about other material data which do not go well
with you symbol of believe?

> Fifteen minutes before the
> collapse, I started to get sick to my stomach and I told my wife that the first
> tower was going to fall - I pointed at the structural distortion at the point
> of the fire and could visualize the coming event with clarity. My wife thought
> I was being overly dramatic, but I kept trying to explain what she was missing.
> Minutes later, the first tower collapsed as hundreds of millions of people
> watched, horrified. No bomb, Michael. If you had paid attention to the event
> as it occurred instead of dancing in the streets celebrating the horror, you
> might have noticed it yourself.

I was not dancing and I am not glade about that now. Chechens bandits
were the only part of russian people who were celebrating this
indeed horror criminal act. Actually I am very sad about american
people who have showen to be so stupid to have such goverment who
can play a role (not clear exactly which one) in all that **** done
on 911. But it does play a role.

Michael

[VV]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
>
> The towers didn't collapse from a bomb, idiot. Fifteen minutes before the
> collapse, I started to get sick to my stomach and I told my wife that the first
> tower was going to fall - I pointed at the structural distortion at the point
> of the fire and could visualize the coming event with clarity.

Don't be so sure, Gordon. Maybe some people had the same thought long
before you and long before 911, maybe after 1991 or 1993. Maybe it was
not a bomb but a charge placed there in advance.

Is it true that the contract to clean up the site was awarded to a
Controlled demolitions Inc. company or a company with a name like
that?

I know you hate conspiracy theories but here is one for your
consideration.

Keith in this thread wrote that prior to Sept 11 2001 there had been
no perceived danger from a hijacked airliner.

There was time before some date in 40-ies no none percieved a danger
from an enemy plane that could make a suicidal attack. But on some
date it became a reality and later the name became known: that was
kamikaze.

I read somewhere that in 1991 there was a danger of a suicide plane
attack in Spain to prevent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations there.

In I believe 1994 terrorists threatened to drop an Airbus on Paris.

In 1995 on of prominent Chechen 'freedom-fighters' threatened the same
thing would fall upon Kremlin, publicly.

These are case know to the public, I mean that part of it that is my
humble self. I do believe in conspiracy theories, at any rate some of
them and I think that there have been more attempts and threats then
these.

So Keith seems to be mistaken here. A suicidal attack could be real
and it was not unknown to those who knew the situation.

Again, before 911 the WTC had alredy been atatcked, in 1993, in a
different manner though, but the attack had really taken place.

The WTC was a tempting target. It was big enough to leave many dead
behind, great material damage, it was of sorts a symbol and so on you
name it when considering the queistion: why was the WTC attacked? But
there was an additional reason for attacking the WTC - its internal
structure.

Maybe some people began to think, at first maybe on just a qualitative
level, maybe later they quantified and even modelled it. The question
was: what would happen if an airliner crashed into one or both of the
towers? Beside the immediate damage what would come next? A fire of
course. How big? Planes after take-offs have lots of fuel that would
go down while burning while flames and suffocating smoke would go up.
For a regular concrete/brick/stone building the danger would have been
that the impact, fire and smoke would kill people both up and down
there, but if the building could stand without collapsing after the
impact it was unlikely that it would fall later.

The WTC was a different case because of its steel framework. Bringing
steel to melting point was not needed because steel loses its strength
at lower temperatures. Jet fuel could develop such temperatures. So
the towers probably could not survive such an attack and could not be
saved.

Another question: if it was to fall, then how? Namely if different
parts of the frame got damaged to different degrees due to asymmetric
impact or uneven fire spreading then... the tower or its parts could
fall ASIDE, onto a much wider area and with much greater damage. These
were HIGH towers after all.

What do the specialist who do the job the company's name denotes to
prevent such things (remember, the building itself was unsavable)?

They make the building COLLAPSE, collapse onto itself.

I needn't explain how they do that you know the place the charges in
certain places and so on. In the WTC case it could be something like
welding thermite instead of expolosives to make the steel melt, but at
the same pace in several crucial places.

After the events take place it's a 'well done, nice job' situation.
Guys here is your contract. You'll do the cleaning job clean, won't
you? Some things should remain hidden from the public and these crazy
conspiracy theorists. The secrecy is justified. In this case many
lives could not be saved, but many have really been saved. Maybe in
the future (God save but who knows) it will help again.

Incredible? I dont' know. Also I don't know who was to make such
decisions in the USA and NYC if there was (were)such (a)person(s).

Now imagine, Gordon, it's you, or you are one of those who are to
decide say batween 1991 and 1995. You know an attack is possible
anytime and maybe pretty soon and they explain to you that if only a
part of the building falls aside it will lead to such and such
results, so and so many deaths (avoidable!)and the only thing you can
do of course except airport and flight security is damage control
thorough some preventive steps. Some things must be placed in right
spots IN ADVANCE. There are people who can determine, where, what and
how much is to be placed. There are other things to discuss with them,
too. They are damn experienced, that's their job they've been doing
for years.

Aren't you grasping the phone receiver yet, to call the guys?

Regards

VV

[Krztalizer]

>
>This is what you think, don't you? Just one stupid guys opinion,
>no more nor less.

Yeah, Mike -I'm the only guy on the planet that thinks you're an idiot.
Riiiiight.

>
>> With your history of gullibility and narrow-minded nationalistic envy, yes,
>> whatever you agree with tends to automatically look discredited.
>>
>> >BTW what do you mean under "this website might have to say"? This one?
>>
>> What I meant is that if you quote a website, then its going to be a
>conspiracy
>> nutjob case that isn't worth reading - just like that one.
>>
>> The towers didn't collapse from a bomb, idiot.
>
>This what you idiot want ot believe in. How about seismic data?
>how about 10 sec collaps times which is approximately free fall time
>from WTC altitude? How about other material data which do not go well
>with you symbol of believe?

Simply put: if you tried to convince me the sky was blue, I would naturally
assume it was not and would have to wait for proof from other sources. Every
time you bring 'evidence', it has so many holes in it that it becomes a joke.
You're the fool that fervently believed your Serb 'brothers' shot down hundreds
of Allied aircraft. You're the utter moron that believes the USA spent
billions of dollars to fake moon landings. You have been wrong in every case I
have seen in the past four years, so I have that much history of you being
screwed up to fall back upon. The chance that Americans planned, carried out,
and then covered up a mass murder on the scale of 9/11 is the same,
mathematically, of you ever being right about anything. Your brain is poisoned
- no other conclusion.

>> Fifteen minutes before the
>> collapse, I started to get sick to my stomach and I told my wife that the
>first
>> tower was going to fall - I pointed at the structural distortion at the
>point
>> of the fire and could visualize the coming event with clarity. My wife
>thought
>> I was being overly dramatic, but I kept trying to explain what she was
>missing.
>> Minutes later, the first tower collapsed as hundreds of millions of people
>> watched, horrified. No bomb, Michael. If you had paid attention to the
>event
>> as it occurred instead of dancing in the streets celebrating the horror,
>you
>> might have noticed it yourself.
>
>I was not dancing and I am not glade about that now.

You sure relish the thought that we could have done such a thing to ourselves,
regardless of what we all watched happen live that day.

>Chechens bandits
>were the only part of russian people who were celebrating this
>indeed horror criminal act.

You 'celebrate' it every time you deny an airliner struck the Pentagon. Your
compassion for the victims is underwhelming.

>Actually I am very sad about american
>people who have showen to be so stupid to have such goverment who
>can play a role (not clear exactly which one) in all that **** done
>on 911.

Not clear exactly? But you will jump on any conspiracy theory and claim it to
be true. That's very scientific.

> But it does play a role.
>
>Michael

The role we played was as agitators to Muslim extremists, and targets. Unless
you feel that GWB managed to organize the entire episode in a few months, and
he was able to put into place THOUSANDS of necessary accomplices to carry out
this heinous act. That makes a lot of sense to an America hater like you, but
thankfully to very few other bent minds. Always a few that will agree with
your views, Michael - thats the fun of mental illness; you get to share it.

[Keith Willshaw]

"VV" > wrote in message
om...
> (Krztalizer) wrote in message
>...

>
> Keith in this thread wrote that prior to Sept 11 2001 there had been
> no perceived danger from a hijacked airliner.
>
> There was time before some date in 40-ies no none percieved a danger
> from an enemy plane that could make a suicidal attack. But on some
> date it became a reality and later the name became known: that was
> kamikaze.
>
> I read somewhere that in 1991 there was a danger of a suicide plane
> attack in Spain to prevent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations there.
>

But no such attack happened

> In I believe 1994 terrorists threatened to drop an Airbus on Paris.
>

But no such attacked happened since the pilot made it quite
clear that he would do no such thging

> In 1995 on of prominent Chechen 'freedom-fighters' threatened the same
> thing would fall upon Kremlin, publicly.
>

They also threatened to use nuclear weapons

> These are case know to the public, I mean that part of it that is my
> humble self. I do believe in conspiracy theories, at any rate some of
> them and I think that there have been more attempts and threats then
> these.
>

Your beliefs have no effect on public perception


> So Keith seems to be mistaken here. A suicidal attack could be real
> and it was not unknown to those who knew the situation.
>

Crap, no hijacked aitcraft had ever been used this way, the hijackers
were making routine demands and asking for clearance to airports.
There was nothing to distinguish this from any of the dozens
of other hijacks that had happened.

As soon as there was the rules changed and the passengers on flight 93
stormed the cockpit to stop the terrorists using their plane the same way

> Again, before 911 the WTC had alredy been atatcked, in 1993, in a
> different manner though, but the attack had really taken place.
>
> The WTC was a tempting target. It was big enough to leave many dead
> behind, great material damage, it was of sorts a symbol and so on you
> name it when considering the queistion: why was the WTC attacked? But
> there was an additional reason for attacking the WTC - its internal
> structure.
>

Possibly, its floor structure of linked trusses would be more
vulnerable than a conmventional structure but I'd guess its
was attacked because of it being the largest building in NYC

> Maybe some people began to think, at first maybe on just a qualitative
> level, maybe later they quantified and even modelled it. The question
> was: what would happen if an airliner crashed into one or both of the
> towers? Beside the immediate damage what would come next? A fire of
> course. How big? Planes after take-offs have lots of fuel that would
> go down while burning while flames and suffocating smoke would go up.
> For a regular concrete/brick/stone building the danger would have been
> that the impact, fire and smoke would kill people both up and down
> there, but if the building could stand without collapsing after the
> impact it was unlikely that it would fall later.
>
> The WTC was a different case because of its steel framework. Bringing
> steel to melting point was not needed because steel loses its strength
> at lower temperatures. Jet fuel could develop such temperatures. So
> the towers probably could not survive such an attack and could not be
> saved.
>

You have just shown your ignorance

Hundredss of buildings in NYC including virtually all
its skyscrapers have steel structures.

> Another question: if it was to fall, then how? Namely if different
> parts of the frame got damaged to different degrees due to asymmetric
> impact or uneven fire spreading then... the tower or its parts could
> fall ASIDE, onto a much wider area and with much greater damage. These
> were HIGH towers after all.
>
> What do the specialist who do the job the company's name denotes to
> prevent such things (remember, the building itself was unsavable)?
>
> They make the building COLLAPSE, collapse onto itself.
>
> I needn't explain how they do that you know the place the charges in
> certain places and so on.

They also spend weeks weakening the structure, remove all the
elevators and stair wells.

In the WTC case it could be something like
> welding thermite instead of expolosives to make the steel melt, but at
> the same pace in several crucial places.
>

I suspect the steel workers who built it and the various inspection teams
who looked at it would have noticed


You sir are a whacko of the first order.

Keith

[Krztalizer]

> I pointed at the structural distortion at the point
>> of the fire and could visualize the coming event with clarity.
>
>Don't be so sure, Gordon.

<snip to save space>

I have seen dozens of controlled collapse events and the preparation involved
includes thousands of pre-drilled holes, VERY evident purposeful weakening of
every single support, etc. Primacord everywhere, obvious preparation work that
often takes weeks. These buildings were struck down by TWO gigantic "bombs" -
namely airliners.

As for Keith's comment, I believe that people in the anti-terror business
thought hijacking airliners was a possible terror event, but prior to 9/11,
most of the terror experts were viewed as alarmists and not given much
attention. When Billy Mitchell told the Navy and the rest of America that Japan
would someday destroy our fleet at Pearl Harbor, using air-dropped torpedoes,
America collectively shook its head, 'no, even though its not mathematically
impossible, its just not going to happen'. We were proven massively wrong. So
even though kamikaze attacks were a known possibility, most Americans ranked
that possibility somewhere around the same chance that Romulans would land.

>Is it true that the contract to clean up the site was awarded to a
>Controlled demolitions Inc. company or a company with a name like
>that?

That company has one of the most solidly professional reputations in our
country. What you are suggesting is that they are also mass murderers, capable
of maintaining a secret plan to murder thousands of other Americans, for years
before and after the event. With Romulan cloaking technology, their efforts to
mine the building could well have been successful. _Thousands_ of maintenance
people worked in those buidlings and no one ever suggested a hint of a problem,
such as the discovery of weakened supports or any other preparation for
demolition. If I worked for that company, I would be outraged at such a
baseless allegation that they were responsible, when we watched the airliner
slam directly into the building.

>I know you hate conspiracy theories but here is one for your
>consideration.

Actually, I enjoy a good conspiracy theory - what I detest are baseless ones
that fall apart under the microscope. Also, any conspiracy that involves
entire ship crews, or thousands of participants, because basically human beings
cannot keep a secret of that magnitude. That is a fact. Kennedy
assassination, stuff like that - of course, not only possible, but probable. I
know a lot of expert shots and if LHO managed two out of three direct hits on a
3-d moving target at that range, well, he ranks as the best shot in history.
So its not conspiracies that bug me - its those theories that ignore the
obvious and depend on the incredible that I can't stand.

>These are case know to the public, I mean that part of it that is my
>humble self. I do believe in conspiracy theories, at any rate some of
>them

So do I, just not the ones that require the secrecy of thousands to succeed.

>So Keith seems to be mistaken here. A suicidal attack could be real
>and it was not unknown to those who knew the situation.

Agreed on this point.

>if different
>parts of the frame got damaged to different degrees due to asymmetric
>impact or uneven fire spreading then... the tower or its parts could
>fall ASIDE, onto a much wider area and with much greater damage. These
>were HIGH towers after all.

I disagree - we've both seen demolitions where buildings collapsed into
themselves. Once the top floors accordion downwards, inertia takes over,
speeding the process.

>After the events take place it's a 'well done, nice job' situation.
>Guys here is your contract. You'll do the cleaning job clean, won't
>you? Some things should remain hidden from the public and these crazy
>conspiracy theorists.

"Guys, here is your contract to murder thousands of Americans. Make sure you
keep the secret for years." Only takes one guy with a conscience, or one too
many beers, and all of this murderous preparation goes up in smoke. Share the
secret with your wife, get divorced and end up on the 11 O'clock news. Such a
secret could be kept by one person, perhaps. Dozens? Hundreds? because you
would have to include everyone that might stumble over the evidence. Then, you
have to convince every building inspector and fire marshall to ignore the
weakened beams and all the other preparations.

i.e., its not going to work.


>Incredible? I dont' know. Also I don't know who was to make such
>decisions in the USA and NYC if there was (were)such (a)person(s).
>

Thousands of Americans, all agreeing to participate in the most monsterous
single-event case of murder in history. How much you must hate us...


<snip slander against Controlled Demolition Inc.

>They are damn experienced, that's their job they've been doing
>for years.

False of course - for years, these professionals have been making huge
structures collapse, by using cranes, bulldozers, and hundreds of people,
working in the open as they selectively weaken the structures at hundreds of
different points, while making every effort to not endanger a single human
life.

>Aren't you grasping the phone receiver yet, to call the guys?
>

Why wouldn't I apply Occam's Razor first? Gigantic airliners exploded within
the towers and eventually brought them down. I witnessed this as it occurred.
What I did not see was any evidence of what you suggest - no ripple fired demo
charges, no dozens of support columns being blown out of the way, in short,
nothing to suggest a controlled demolition occuring within an hour of hijacked
aircraft impacting the structures.

For this theory of yours to work, every person at that company would have to
agree to keep one hell of an ugly secret, forever. The people that ordered
this act, and their families, would also have to carry the secret around every
day of their lives. Building inspectors, fire marshalls, all would have to
understand why they needed to participate, and agree to do so, forever. "Two
people can keep a secret if one is dead." How about hundreds of people? _No
one_ wants the millions of dollars and publicity that would come from being the
loudest whistle blower in history? Come now.

v/r
Gordon

[Pete]

"Glenfiddich" > wrote
>
> I'd HOPE that the USAF and ANG had planned for emergency refuelling
> at all US airports with decent runways.

The USAF may have planned for it. But, pre-9/11, did that extend to the
United mechanic on the ground?
Is there a truck with the right fuel coupling available? Is the guy who's
'trained' available, or on evening shift?
'Hot' refuels are practiced with some regularity in the air force.

It could be done, but probably not on 5 minutes notice. 1/2 hour maybe. But
by then it's too late.

Pete

[[email protected]]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>You sir are a whacko of the first order.
>
>Keith

Nah Keith, he's a piker, a little boy in short pants in
comparison with Ian Goddard of TWA flt800 fame. Remember him?
Ended up apologizing publicly to the USN.
--

-Gord.

[VV]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "VV" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Krztalizer) wrote in message
> >...

> > I read somewhere that in 1991 there was a danger of a suicide plane
> > attack in Spain to prevent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations there.
>
> But no such attack happened

Did this fact make it impossible? AFAIK this particular one failed
due to the fact some Arab intelligence service learned about it in
advance. Yet it was possible, at any rate one of many could be
successful.
>
> > In I believe 1994 terrorists threatened to drop an Airbus on Paris.
>
> But no such attacked happened since the pilot made it quite
> clear that he would do no such thging

Conclusions were made: Don't rely on pilots' 'cooperation', train your
owm pilots devoted to accomplish the job. And that was done, as you
know. Things in this dark world are really 'improving'.

> > In 1995 on of prominent Chechen 'freedom-fighters' threatened the same
> > thing would fall upon Kremlin, publicly.
> They also threatened to use nuclear weapons
>
They had none, it was a shallow threat. But a plane could be hijacked
and it was hijacked, namely in May 2001 a TU-154 plane was hijacked in
Turkey, but pilots locked the door and didn't let the hijackers in.
What was on their minds?

> > These are case know to the public, I mean that part of it that is my
> > humble self. I do believe in conspiracy theories, at any rate some of
> > them and I think that there have been more attempts and threats then
> > these.
>
> Your beliefs have no effect on public perception

I once again state, that I believe in some conspiracy theories. I do
believe that even right now some terrorists are planning new attacks
including those with suicide bombers. Sober-minded public may disagree
with me.

> > So Keith seems to be mistaken here. A suicidal attack could be real
> > and it was not unknown to those who knew the situation.

> Crap, no hijacked aitcraft had ever been used this way, the hijackers
> were making routine demands and asking for clearance to airports.

Kith, maybe some mistake on my part. I meant to say such an attack was
not impossible. English is still a foreign language to me.

> There was nothing to distinguish this from any of the dozens
> of other hijacks that had happened.

When you don't know whether a gun is loaded or not threat it as
loaded. If through intelligence sources you learn that some fanatic
people are being brainwashed into a suicidal attack take it seriously.

> As soon as there was the rules changed and the passengers on flight 93
> stormed the cockpit to stop the terrorists using their plane the same way

Rules changed before 911 see Palestine, India etc, but not everybody
was fully aware of that.
>
> > Again, before 911 the WTC had alredy been atatcked, in 1993, in a
> > different manner though, but the attack had really taken place.
> >
> > The WTC was a tempting target. It was big enough to leave many dead
> > behind, great material damage, it was of sorts a symbol and so on you
> > name it when considering the queistion: why was the WTC attacked? But
> > there was an additional reason for attacking the WTC - its internal
> > structure.
> >
>
> Possibly, its floor structure of linked trusses would be more
> vulnerable than a conmventional structure but I'd guess its
> was attacked because of it being the largest building in NYC
>
Most probable you're gight. The WTC was a tempting target no matter
what its structure was. Had it been as robust as possible it would
still be. Besides for the terrorists it could be a matter of 'honour'
to get it finished. 1993 was only 'a partial success' for them.

> > Maybe some people began to think, at first maybe on just a qualitative
> > level, maybe later they quantified and even modelled it. The question
> > was: what would happen if an airliner crashed into one or both of the
> > towers? Beside the immediate damage what would come next? A fire of
> > course. How big? Planes after take-offs have lots of fuel that would
> > go down while burning while flames and suffocating smoke would go up.
> > For a regular concrete/brick/stone building the danger would have been
> > that the impact, fire and smoke would kill people both up and down
> > there, but if the building could stand without collapsing after the
> > impact it was unlikely that it would fall later.
> >
> > The WTC was a different case because of its steel framework. Bringing
> > steel to melting point was not needed because steel loses its strength
> > at lower temperatures. Jet fuel could develop such temperatures. So
> > the towers probably could not survive such an attack and could not be
> > saved.
> >
> You have just shown your ignorance.

I do not claim I know all things. But what is wrong with these two
paragraphs above?
>
> Hundredss of buildings in NYC including virtually all
> its skyscrapers have steel structures.

And what? Does it make them less vulnerable that there are hundreds of
them?

> > Another question: if it was to fall, then how? Namely if different
> > parts of the frame got damaged to different degrees due to asymmetric
> > impact or uneven fire spreading then... the tower or its parts could
> > fall ASIDE, onto a much wider area and with much greater damage. These
> > were HIGH towers after all.
> >
> > What do the specialist who do the job the company's name denotes to
> > prevent such things (remember, the building itself was unsavable)?
> >
> > They make the building COLLAPSE, collapse onto itself.
> >
> > I needn't explain how they do that you know the place the charges in
> > certain places and so on.
>
> They also spend weeks weakening the structure, remove all the
> elevators and stair wells.

A good point. There are really big differences.

Under regular circumstances they don't have to hide what they are
doing. They take every step to prevent the trouble - they bar access
to the building, remove what can and must be removed, evecuate people
from around the site etc. And weakening the structure before an attack
takes place is a stupidity of course.

But a terrorist attack is an emergency and some changes to the regular
procedures may be needed.

> In the WTC case it could be something like
> > welding thermite instead of expolosives to make the steel melt, but at
> > the same pace in several crucial places.
>
> I suspect the steel workers who built it and the various inspection teams
> who looked at it would have noticed
>
A good question. Have they? Have they not?

> You sir are a whacko of the first order.

In developing my theory I used ALL my brain convolutions available,
i.e. both of them ;)

It is just a theory you are free to criticise or even debunk.
Besides reread what the goal of placing such charges could be.

Anyway thanks for such a promotion ;)

Regards

VV

[Keith Willshaw]

"VV" > wrote in message
om...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
>...
> > "VV" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (Krztalizer) wrote in message
> > >...
>
> > > I read somewhere that in 1991 there was a danger of a suicide plane
> > > attack in Spain to prevent Israeli-Palestinian negotiations there.
> >
> > But no such attack happened
>
> Did this fact make it impossible?

No bit meant it didnt become a perceived threat.


> AFAIK this particular one failed
> due to the fact some Arab intelligence service learned about it in
> advance. Yet it was possible, at any rate one of many could be
> successful.

Quite so but not everything possible is perceived as likely


> >
> > > In I believe 1994 terrorists threatened to drop an Airbus on Paris.
> >
> > But no such attacked happened since the pilot made it quite
> > clear that he would do no such thging
>
> Conclusions were made: Don't rely on pilots' 'cooperation', train your
> owm pilots devoted to accomplish the job. And that was done, as you
> know. Things in this dark world are really 'improving'.
>

Hindsight is wonderful

Using the same tool it was 'obvious' that Chechen rebels would hijack
a theatre, how come the Russian authorities failed to prevent it ?


> > > In 1995 on of prominent Chechen 'freedom-fighters' threatened the same
> > > thing would fall upon Kremlin, publicly.
> > They also threatened to use nuclear weapons
> >
> They had none, it was a shallow threat. But a plane could be hijacked
> and it was hijacked, namely in May 2001 a TU-154 plane was hijacked in
> Turkey, but pilots locked the door and didn't let the hijackers in.
> What was on their minds?
>

Not being hijacked

Duh

> > > These are case know to the public, I mean that part of it that is my
> > > humble self. I do believe in conspiracy theories, at any rate some of
> > > them and I think that there have been more attempts and threats then
> > > these.
> >
> > Your beliefs have no effect on public perception
>
> I once again state, that I believe in some conspiracy theories.

We've noticed


Keith

[Michael Petukhov]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> >
> >This is what you think, don't you? Just one stupid guys opinion,
> >no more nor less.
>
> Yeah, Mike -I'm the only guy on the planet that thinks you're an idiot.
> Riiiiight.

Not the only, but yes you are a minority. And not the better part
of humans I personally know. You level is very low indeed. In my
personal view certainly.

>
> >
> >> With your history of gullibility and narrow-minded nationalistic envy, yes,
> >> whatever you agree with tends to automatically look discredited.
> >>
> >> >BTW what do you mean under "this website might have to say"? This one?
> >>
> >> What I meant is that if you quote a website, then its going to be a
> conspiracy
> >> nutjob case that isn't worth reading - just like that one.
> >>
> >> The towers didn't collapse from a bomb, idiot.
> >
> >This what you idiot want ot believe in. How about seismic data?
> >how about 10 sec collaps times which is approximately free fall time
> >from WTC altitude? How about other material data which do not go well
> >with you symbol of believe?
>
> Simply put: if you tried to convince me the sky was blue, I would naturally
> assume it was not and would have to wait for proof from other sources. Every
> time you bring 'evidence', it has so many holes in it that it becomes a joke.

Well it could be. But let's talk about these holes rather than
my personality.

> You're the fool that fervently believed your Serb 'brothers' shot down hundreds
> of Allied aircraft.

Wrong again. I told you that russian general staff reported that
according to their intel data there were 40-50 allied aircraft
shoot down. Since 1) I do not beleive a word from criminals form US
goverment and 2) in my view there is no any interests for russian
army to overestimate NATO losses in this war, I prefer
to beleive russian army reports. Logically, isn't it?


> You're the utter moron that believes the USA spent
> billions of dollars to fake moon landings.

Yes sir, your goiverment faked manned parts of moon landings.
Automatic probes were fine as far as I know. I have
no idea and do not care about how many billions of
US tax money were stolen in that process. You do not
like this? Your problem.


> You have been wrong in every case I
> have seen in the past four years, so I have that much history of you being
> screwed up to fall back upon.

Highly overestimation. I was wrong in a few of cases.
I am not affraid to be wrong. Humans are often wrong.
You for instance. Should I remind you about little
Tu22Ms mistake. Or even here your claim "You have been
wrong in every case I have seen in the past four years"
is not only wrong it is open lie. Because I have beat
your many times and in a few cases you have admited
that. Should I remind you your own words?

> The chance that Americans planned, carried out,
> and then covered up a mass murder on the scale of 9/11 is the same,
> mathematically, of you ever being right about anything.

Well who said Americans "planned, carried out, and then covered
up a mass murder on the scale of 9/11 is the same". Not me
at least. I said that US goverment played a role in this ****.
Which one I have no idea. You too.

>
> >> Fifteen minutes before the
> >> collapse, I started to get sick to my stomach and I told my wife that the
> first
> >> tower was going to fall - I pointed at the structural distortion at the
> point
> >> of the fire and could visualize the coming event with clarity. My wife
> thought
> >> I was being overly dramatic, but I kept trying to explain what she was
> missing.
> >> Minutes later, the first tower collapsed as hundreds of millions of people
> >> watched, horrified. No bomb, Michael. If you had paid attention to the
> event
> >> as it occurred instead of dancing in the streets celebrating the horror,
> you
> >> might have noticed it yourself.
> >
> >I was not dancing and I am not glade about that now.
>
> You sure relish the thought that we could have done such a thing to ourselves,
> regardless of what we all watched happen live that day.

No. Indeed I do not really care about US but I am not
happy at all that such powerful country as US has goverment
of criminals playing a role in massmurder of its own
innocent citizens. Why? Because I affraid that at certain
stage there will nobody but russian people who would
have obligation to eliminate that band of criminals.


>
> >Chechens bandits
> >were the only part of russian people who were celebrating this
> >indeed horror criminal act.
>
> You 'celebrate' it every time you deny an airliner struck the Pentagon. Your
> compassion for the victims is underwhelming.

Gordon you simply do not like to see the true. That's your problem.
I tell you and you can trust me I have no reasons whatsoever to
celebrate anything in 911 ****. It is not only tradegy more imprtant
is that nobody knows what those who planed and did all that wonna do
next.

>
> >Actually I am very sad about american
> >people who have showen to be so stupid to have such goverment who
> >can play a role (not clear exactly which one) in all that **** done
> >on 911.
>
> Not clear exactly? But you will jump on any conspiracy theory and claim it to
> be true. That's very scientific.
>
> > But it does play a role.
> >
> >Michael
>
> The role we played was as agitators to Muslim extremists, and targets.
> Unless you feel that GWB managed to organize the entire episode in a few months,

As we have been recently told by his former cabinet memeber GWB is plain
stupid playing very little role in his own government affairs. Looks true.
How he could managed to organize the entire episode? The only think
he seems really care is his Texas rancho.

> and
> he was able to put into place THOUSANDS of necessary accomplices to carry out
> this heinous act. That makes a lot of sense to an America hater

I told you I do not hate America, I just do not like it. And it is true.
Why should I love it? do you need I love america? If so why?
Is it due to a inferiority complex?

> like you, but
> thankfully to very few.

Unfortunately yes there are too few of those who
are immune against US NAZI styled propaganda mashine,
particularly in US. But thanks to internet (US invention!)
nobody can stop information distribution any more.
Even US government cannot stop distribution of
data on its criminal acts. Internet will kill this
propaganda mashine.

>Always a few that will agree with
> your views, Michael - thats the fun of mental illness; you get to share it.

But you have to agree I have all rights to have my views as
you do with yours. Try to take it easy.

Michael

[Michael Petukhov]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
>>
> >I know you hate conspiracy theories but here is one for your
> >consideration.
>
> Actually, I enjoy a good conspiracy theory

Gordon, that's "Actually, I enjoy a good conspiracy theory "
will be remembered.

Michael

[VV]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...
> > I pointed at the structural distortion at the point
> >> of the fire and could visualize the coming event with clarity.
> >
> >Don't be so sure, Gordon.
>
> <snip to save space>
>
> I have seen dozens of controlled collapse events and the preparation involved
> includes thousands of pre-drilled holes, VERY evident purposeful weakening of
> every single support, etc. Primacord everywhere, obvious preparation work that
> often takes weeks. These buildings were struck down by TWO gigantic "bombs" -
> namely airliners.

I'm proud, Gordon. I've just been promoted by Keith to a 'person of
the first order rank'(read his post in this thread). And what does the
word 'whacko' mean? I can't find it in my e-dictionary. It it some
sort of abbreviation? Something like World Human Achievement... What
do the letters CKO stand for? ;)

But let's go on chewing our rag.

Sure there are differences. One of them is it has been decided to
demolish a building and they plan to demolish it safely and
efficiently, with no rush, unconditionally and they do their
preparations in open.

In the WTC case it is different: the demolition is conditional and it
depends on whether the building is attacked or not, on whether there
is a risk of falling or not. The attack say can be made with a smaller
plane, depending on perpetrators' access to aircraft and in this case
a smaller, controllable fire may follow and there is no need to press
the button.

The second consideration is secrecy. The third is that you cannot bore
holes and weaken the structure in advance because it's dangerous and
because the use of this all is conditional. Maybe hollow charges can
be used (don't hollow charges leave some melting?). Maybe some high
temperature agents. The situation determines and modifies the means.
Maybe an intensive study and modelling is needed, but before 911 there
was some time to do it.

> As for Keith's comment, I believe that people in the anti-terror business
> thought hijacking airliners was a possible terror event, but prior to 9/11,
> most of the terror experts were viewed as alarmists and not given much
> attention.

Maybe yes, maybe not. Most people are careful and careless at the same
time: they are careful enough to lock their doors, but sometimes
careless to keep fire extinguishers in a good working order.

When Billy Mitchell told the Navy and the rest of America that Japan
> would someday destroy our fleet at Pearl Harbor, using air-dropped torpedoes,
> America collectively shook its head, 'no, even though its not mathematically
> impossible, its just not going to happen'. We were proven massively wrong.

Mathematically? Or because the bay was a bit shallow for air-dropped
torps?
When did he told the NAVY? I read somewhere that various variants of
airborne torp attack of a fleet based in Pearl Harbour was developed
by the British Admiralty in early 20-s, with a view to overcome the
shallow water factor. Sure they didn' make these plans very public.
BTW until 1923 they were Japan's allies. It was Britain who brought
them to Entente side. Maybe these ideas grew on English lawns? Not PH,
but this type of attack?

Mr. Churchill, I believe, had something to do with the Royal Navy.
Well he had much to do with it. Couldn't he share his considerations
with Americans? What if he did? (Quite a conspracy theory, of course,
and the PH attack is a different topic to discuss separately).

But if he didn't there was something to take notice of. Their plan was
executed, not in PH, of course, in Italy, in Taranto, in 1940.
Conditions were differed but I believe it was a PH-style attach,
mutatis mutandis of course. Was it not an alarm bell for optimists?

> >Is it true that the contract to clean up the site was awarded to a
> >Controlled demolitions Inc.?
>
> That company has one of the most solidly professional reputations in our
> country. What you are suggesting is that they are also mass murderers, capable
> of maintaining a secret plan to murder thousands of other Americans, for years
> before and after the event.

Murder? What murder?

_Thousands_ of maintenance
> people worked in those buidlings and no one ever suggested a hint of a problem,
> such as the discovery of weakened supports or any other preparation for
> demolition.

See above. It was not necessary and was even dangerous.

>If I worked for that company, I would be outraged at such a
> baseless allegation that they were responsible, when we watched the airliner
> slam directly into the building.

Gordon, pls, read my post more attentively. What I suggest is their or
somebody elses' participation in a sort of 'conspiracy', or rather
operation to PREVENT MORE deaths and destruction, to save those AROUND
around the TALL building (hundreds of meters!!!)if those inside were
already not salvable. What if one of the towers fell on another? I do
not know many details, but how many more peole were within
100-200-300-400 meters range? What the hit zone could be if the towers
fell ASIDE instead of collapsing? How many more dead? None, dozens,
hundreds, thousands?

> Actually, I enjoy a good conspiracy theory - what I detest are baseless ones
> that fall apart under the microscope.

This maybe the one, and the one with positive goals. It also might
explain some seismic and video data.

>Also, any conspiracy that involves > entire ship crews, or thousands
of participants, because basically human beings > cannot keep a secret
of that magnitude. That is a fact. Kennedy
> assassination, stuff like that - of course, not only possible, but probable.

This case needs few people, and positively motivated. It seems to me
you personally wouldn't mind being involved in such an operation,
quite possible even without material interest.

Or imagine you learn by accident that such a thing is true for
hundreds of buildings that are still intact? They are mined, kinda. It
is a 'conspiracy'.And if bad guys learn about it they could try to use
the secret charges and blow the buildings even without an aircraft
attack? Would you consider it right to keep your mouth shut?
I
> know a lot of expert shots and if LHO managed two out of three direct hits on a
> 3-d moving target at that range, well, he ranks as the best shot in history.
> So its not conspiracies that bug me - its those theories that ignore the
> obvious and depend on the incredible that I can't stand.
>
> >These are case know to the public, I mean that part of it that is my
> >humble self. I do believe in conspiracy theories, at any rate some of
> >them
>
> So do I, just not the ones that require the secrecy of thousands to succeed.

See above. Thousands not needed.
> >So Keith seems to be mistaken here. A suicidal attack could be real
> >and it was not unknown to those who knew the situation.
>
> Agreed on this point.
>
> >if different
> >parts of the frame got damaged to different degrees due to asymmetric
> >impact or uneven fire spreading then... the tower or its parts could
> >fall ASIDE, onto a much wider area and with much greater damage. These
> >were HIGH towers after all.
>
> I disagree - we've both seen demolitions where buildings collapsed into
> themselves. Once the top floors accordion downwards, inertia takes over,
> speeding the process.

The question is whether it debunks or proves my theory. What if
charges were placed at various hights?

>
> "Guys, here is your contract to murder thousands of Americans.

A strange conclusion. What is it based upon? Certainly not on my
theory.

Make sure you
> keep the secret for years." Only takes one guy with a conscience, or one too
> many beers, and all of this murderous preparation goes up in smoke. Share the
> secret with your wife, get divorced and end up on the 11 O'clock news. Such a
> secret could be kept by one person, perhaps. Dozens? Hundreds? because you
> would have to include everyone that might stumble over the evidence. Then, you
> have to convince every building inspector and fire marshall to ignore the
> weakened beams and all the other preparations.
>
> i.e., its not going to work.
>
It may. What murderous preparations? What weakened beams? See above.
Print it and read all of it.

> Thousands of Americans, all agreeing to participate in the most monsterous
> single-event case of murder in history. How much you must hate us...

Thousands? Murder? Hate?

> <snip slander against Controlled Demolition Inc.

Slander? What slander? I don't see any. Maybe someone, a man, a woman,
or a kid who was not close enought to the WTC foot, but close enough
to be hit by its top floor(s) is alive now because of CDI? Or many of
them are?

> >They are damn experienced, that's their job they've been doing
> >for years.
>
> False of course - for years, these professionals have been making huge
> structures collapse, by using cranes, bulldozers, and hundreds of people,
> working in the open as they selectively weaken the structures at hundreds of
> different points, while making every effort to not endanger a single human
> life.

These are regular, 'safety first' conditions. With WTC it was a bit
different.

> >Aren't you grasping the phone receiver yet, to call the guys?
>
> Why wouldn't I apply Occam's Razor first? Gigantic airliners exploded within
> the towers and eventually brought them down. I witnessed this as it occurred.

If you have mentioned Pearl Harbour then recall the hospital scene
from the movie. Watch the movie once again. Understand their motives.
It was not Occam razor, but it really divided people. 'Save those who
can be saved'.And you quite misunderstood the message you were to
deliver to the guys you seem to have so much respect to. That was
damage control, not the 'murderous things' you are boiling about.

> What I did not see was any evidence of what you suggest - no ripple fired demo
> charges, no dozens of support columns being blown out of the way, in short,
> nothing to suggest a controlled demolition occuring within an hour of hijacked
> aircraft impacting the structures.

You maybe were not supposed to see it.

> For this theory of yours to work, every person at that company would have to
> agree to keep one hell of an ugly secret, forever. The people that ordered
> this act, and their families, would also have to carry the secret around every
> day of their lives. Building inspectors, fire marshalls, all would have to
> understand why they needed to participate, and agree to do so, forever.

few of them. Maybe they understand. The secret is not ugly. No one
lives forever. And it is a theory, again.
"Two
> people can keep a secret if one is dead." How about hundreds of people? _No
> one_ wants the millions of dollars and publicity that would come from being the
> loudest whistle blower in history? Come now.

PLS, read my posts once again, attentively. Get their message.

And please Gordon, do youself (and me) a favour and make a thought
experiment. Watch the PH hospital scene once again. Already done?
Good.

Now repeat the scene with your wife in a bit modified form. Before the
moment you realise the buildings were to fall it is the same as you
described, but you have a button on your desk. You know what kind of
button it is.

Now the events take a different course. You noticed what you noticed
but you have no time to discuss it with your wife. You have other
thing to do: to make a decision. The decision. You have had hopes
before the button won't be needed. But now you know the moment after
which NO ONE inside and quite close to the building can be saved.
Those a bit further still can and it depends on you.

I've imagined it for myself and shuddered.

Regards

VV

[VV]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "VV" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> >...
> > >
> > > But no such attack happened
> >
> > Did this fact make it impossible?
>
> No bit meant it didnt become a perceived threat.

?????

>
> Quite so but not everything possible is perceived as likely


>
>
> > > > In I believe 1994 terrorists threatened to drop an Airbus on Paris.
> > >
> > > But no such attacked happened since the pilot made it quite
> > > clear that he would do no such thging
> >
> > Conclusions were made: Don't rely on pilots' 'cooperation', train your
> > owm pilots devoted to accomplish the job. And that was done, as you
> > know. Things in this dark world are really 'improving'.

> Hindsight is wonderful

It is. What's your point here?
>
> Using the same tool it was 'obvious' that Chechen rebels would hijack
> a theatre, how come the Russian authorities failed to prevent it ?

One of several attempts may succeed. If no steps are made all of them
will. Just ask Putin. Just ask Sharon. Just ask Bush. Just ak Blair.
Just ask... The list gonna be long.

The questions are who, when, where and how.

And you'd better call them freedom fighters.

> > > > In 1995 on of prominent Chechen 'freedom-fighters' threatened the same
> > > > thing would fall upon Kremlin, publicly.
> > > They also threatened to use nuclear weapons
> > >
> > They had none, it was a shallow threat. But a plane could be hijacked
> > and it was hijacked, namely in May 2001 a TU-154 plane was hijacked in
> > Turkey, but pilots locked the door and didn't let the hijackers in.
> > What was on their minds?
>
> Not being hijacked

Oops I meant hijackers, not pilotes.

> We've noticed

Let's note we've stopped discussing and are just exchanging
meaningless remarks.

Regards

VV

[Mike Marron]

(ZZBunker) wrote:

>Exactly wrong. Since the US Taxpayers paid for well
>over *5000* active military jets, including F-14, F-15,
>F-16, F-18.

Hate to admit it, but you have a valid point there.

>The Question is why where there *2* jets scrambled from *New England*
>to intercept Jets that were hijacked in New Jersey
>and Washington. When the FAA had already grounded all
>Civilian traffic throughtout the country.

Another valid point.

>Bush & Bush Inc. are not Nuclear WMD losers, they are MORONS.

Don't forget Clinton & Clinton Inc.

(E.G: terrorist attacks preceding 9/11 during the Billary
administration such as the first WTC bombing in 1993, the
Khobar Towers in 1996, U.S. embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000 et cetera...)

--
Mike Marron
pegasus912 at tampabay dot rr dot com

[Krztalizer]

>This case needs few people, and positively motivated. It seems to me
>you personally wouldn't mind being involved in such an operation,
>quite possible even without material interest.

You would be wrong - because planting explosives in a building occupied by
people would be WRONG. What if there ws no terrorist attack and instead just a
small fire, one that triggered the explosives? If I were in the group of
mythical people who installed the explosives, I would be the first person to
say, "Wait a minute, guys - what happens if some terrorist finds out the
building is pre-wired and finds a way to trip the explosives?? We've just done
their job FOR them!" So, no, please leave me out of the delusion.

>Or imagine you learn by accident that such a thing is true for
>hundreds of buildings that are still intact? They are mined, kinda. It
>is a 'conspiracy'.And if bad guys learn about it they could try to use
>the secret charges and blow the buildings even without an aircraft
>attack? Would you consider it right to keep your mouth shut?

See above - I'd have a pan, a large spoon, and I'd be banging them together and
screaming at the top of my lungs to get the word out. Knowing thousands of
people were in danger would galvanize me, and most everyone I know, into that
action. To be quiet is to be an accomplice.

>
>The question is whether it debunks or proves my theory. What if
>charges were placed at various hights?
>

Then, just like on every single controlled demo I've seen, there would be
recognizeable weakening explosions and someone pushing a plunger. What we all
watched was a hugely damaged structure collapse after being struck by a
gigantic airliner. You may require more of a cause, but the WTC didn't.

>>
>> "Guys, here is your contract to murder thousands of Americans.
>
>A strange conclusion. What is it based upon? Certainly not on my
>theory.

Your theory requires dozens of professions, in a profession that is based on
maintaining human safety, purposely installing explosives into an occupied
building. Regardless of the "plan", the moment the building dropped, everyone
involved would know they were duped into assisting the murder of hundreds of
firefighters and trapped victims. Your theory requires all of the people
involved to be content to do this, forever.

>What murderous preparations? What weakened beams? See above.
>Print it and read all of it.

No need - the holes in your conspiracy theory are visible from across the room,
projected onto the head of a pin. Shaped charges planted in many locations to
ensure the deed would require not one or two, but dozens of people working in
secrecy - if they didn't weaken the beams, there is no guarantee that the whole
idea would work "to save lives", so instead, you are just doing a half-ass job
- something the demos guys DON'T do.

>> Thousands of Americans, all agreeing to participate in the most monsterous
>> single-event case of murder in history. How much you must hate us...
>
>Thousands? Murder? Hate?

Yes Thousands - 1)inspectors 2)fire marshalls 3) demo specialists 4) their
bosses 5)people in government (that would just LOVE for this to one day leak
out and ruin their careers/lives) that would have to approve of such things 6)
anyone in the building that MIGHT stumble over evidence - all agreeing that to
plant explosives "for good reasons" into one of the world's busiest commercial
centers is ok. Only one person along the way needs to have second thoughts or
share the plan with a person with a blabbermouth and every person involved ends
up in front of a grand jury. Murder? Yes - planting explosives in an occupied
building would get a conviction for attempted murder in our country:
GUARANTEED. Hate? Yes - I believe you really have to hate us to come up with
such an idea.

>> <snip slander against Controlled Demolition Inc.
>
>Slander? What slander?

You suggested that this company's employees participated in planting explosives
under unsuspecting people, ultimately leading to the deaths of hundreds of
firefighters that somehow missed the briefing that, "in a fire or other large
emergency, the building will be leveled, regardless of who is inside". If I
was in that company, I would have my lawyer working immediately to address the
false claim you have made against them.

> I don't see any.

Take a look at the definition of slander - the doer isn't required to 'see' it,
only the people/organization that got mud thrown on it. As you have done.

>Maybe someone, a man, a woman,
>or a kid who was not close enought to the WTC foot, but close enough
>to be hit by its top floor(s) is alive now because of CDI? Or many of
>them are?

Like all the firefighters...? Nonsense.

>selectively weaken the structures at hundreds of
>> different points, while making every effort to not endanger a single human
>> life.
>
>These are regular, 'safety first' conditions. With WTC it was a bit
>different.

"We'll need to kill hundreds of firefighters this time guys - anyone have a
problem with that...? Ok, good."


>That was
>damage control, not the 'murderous things' you are boiling about.

Planting explosives in an occupied building is damage control? Remind me not
to have you around in an emergency.

>
>You maybe were not supposed to see it.

If this whole plan was "for the good of the people", why would its efforts be
hidden?

>The secret is not ugly. No one
>lives forever. And it is a theory, again.

"A few" people, required to hold the secret that they, not the airline
hijackers, killed all of those firemen rushing into the building. That's a
secret that would not be kept.

>
>Now repeat the scene with your wife in a bit modified form. Before the
>moment you realise the buildings were to fall it is the same as you
>described, but you have a button on your desk. You know what kind of
>button it is.

Yes, I do.

Its an imaginary one. Next to my "toss a pie in Cheney's face" button.

>Now the events take a different course. You noticed what you noticed
>but you have no time to discuss it with your wife. You have other
>thing to do: to make a decision. The decision. You have had hopes
>before the button won't be needed.

The pie must be thrown. So, without hesitation, I hurl a banana cream pie
directly into Cheney's face. Then, my wife tells her friends what an idiot i
am, and soon the news media and everyone else knows all about the button.

Same if I used the other mythical button.


>
>I've imagined it for myself and shuddered.

I'm unable to imagine myself killing hundreds of firefighters on the chance
that the building 'might' topple to the side.

Gordon

[Zamboni]

"Steve Richter" > wrote in message
om...

>
> thinking a little bit about this ...
>
> 540 mph is the cruising speed of the F-15. Its top speed looks to be
> well over 1000mph. But no one knew where the 2nd plane was going to
> hit. It could have been NYC or any other city anywhere else in the
> country. My guess would be that the F-15 pilots at Otis rarely fly
> above cruising speed, so there would probably be some risk in doing
> that.
>
> -Steve

Besides shattering every piece of glass (and eardrums) between Otis an NYC?
The glass in the streets would have been knee-deep from an F-15 crossing
Manhattan at 1500 feet at 1000mph. (Still might not have kept them from
doing it anyway, given a confirmed target to go after.)

Fuel consumption would be the major concern, I would think.
--
Zamboni

[ZZBunker]

Mike Marron > wrote in message >...
> (ZZBunker) wrote:
>
> >Exactly wrong. Since the US Taxpayers paid for well
> >over *5000* active military jets, including F-14, F-15,
> >F-16, F-18.
>
> Hate to admit it, but you have a valid point there.
>
> >The Question is why where there *2* jets scrambled from *New England*
> >to intercept Jets that were hijacked in New Jersey
> >and Washington. When the FAA had already grounded all
> >Civilian traffic throughtout the country.
>
> Another valid point.
>
> >Bush & Bush Inc. are not Nuclear WMD losers, they are MORONS.
>
> Don't forget Clinton & Clinton Inc.
>
> (E.G: terrorist attacks preceding 9/11 during the Billary
> administration such as the first WTC bombing in 1993, the
> Khobar Towers in 1996, U.S. embassies in Kenya and
> Tanzania in 1998, the USS Cole in 2000 et cetera...)

But Clinton wasn't incorporated with Clinton.
It was Clinton and Gore Inc. Since Clinton
was too stupid to even take Jimmy Carter's
advice concerning Nuclear Power.

[BUFDRVR]

> But NYC wasn't the only place being attacked.
> If it was the FAA wouldn't have grounded *ALL*
> civil air traffic throughout CONUS.

I think you need to do some research on this subject. Exactly how many ANG
Fighter Units do you think we have? One in every state? Two? One in every other
state?

> So I guess the Air Force is obviously saying that
> the whole plan in such situations is to have
> two National Guard Jets from Mass. protect the entire
> US in such situations.

First off, the USAF doesn't make those choices, NORAD does. Secondly, our air
defense posture had dropped significantly over the decade preceeding 9/11/01. I
can tell you're very unfamiliar with ANG Units and their locations or else you
would have complained about the lack of response of the NJANG Unit from
Stockton NJ (just north of Atlantic City - a mere 80 nm from the WTC). Where
were the "Jersey Devils"? They were not sitting NORAD Air Defense Alert, and if
I remember correctly, most were deployed to Saudi Arabia for Operation Southern
Watch.

>Which is also why most of trust Abrams Tanks
> more that we trust New York, Mass, Maine,
> Texas, California, or George Bush in the General Election.
>

Thats funny, because the heart of your complaint is that there weren't more air
defense fighter units to respond to the hijackings. This was a direct result of
William Jefferson Clinton. Did you trust him?

> If Andrews doesn't have jets on alert, then
> no Airbase in the entire country has jets on alert.
>

Wrong. Andrews was not sitting NORAD air defense alert on 9/11/01, but did
manage to get 2 x F-16As airborne over DC just minutes after the Pentagon got
hit. Interestingly enough, these 2 jets had just returned from a training
sortie and had no weapons on board. According to articles I've read, their plan
was to divert any aircraft by flying close maneuvers or, in a last ditch, ram
them. But the bottom line, Andrews was not on NORAD Air Defense alert on
9/11/01. Why does that surprise you?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[VV]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...

> planting explosives in a building occupied by people would be WRONG.

Under regular circumstances it is. Keeping dangerous things where
people may get in a harm's way is wrong. For example, keeping guns,
matches, knives or pills in homes where kids can reach them is wrong.
Driving a car with gasoline in the tank is wrong because the gasoline
may catch fire in an accident and ETC, ETC, ETC.

What if there ws no terrorist attack and instead just a
> small fire, one that triggered the explosives?

No attack -no demolition. Small fire? Maybe. Fires take place in many
places with lots of explosives and fuel, say, aircraft carriers, other
men-of-war. Yet stupid people go on keeping the danderous stuff!

If I were in the group of
> mythical people who installed the explosives, I would be the first person to
> say, "Wait a minute, guys - what happens if some terrorist finds out the
> building is pre-wired and finds a way to trip the explosives?? We've just done their job FOR them!"

Don't let him find out, don't let them use it. That's why you are
supposed to keep silent. Whistle-blowing is not always a good thing.

> See above - I'd have a pan, a large spoon, and I'd be banging them together and
> screaming at the top of my lungs to get the word out. Knowing thousands of
> people were in danger would galvanize me, and most everyone I know, into that
> action. To be quiet is to be an accomplice.

Making a big noise may be detrimental to other people's interests
namely health and the life itself because bad guys may find out.
>
> Then, just like on every single controlled demo I've seen, there would be
> recognizeable weakening explosions and someone pushing a plunger.

Again, under normal conditions. You see people entering and leaving
their homes through the doors, under normal conditions. In an
emergency they may jump out of windows (No offence to Bill Gates).
What was going on inside and below the surface level?

>What we all watched was a hugely damaged structure collapse after
being >struck by a gigantic airliner. You may require more of a
cause, but the WTC > >didn't.

After, but not immediately. Maybe it really didn't. I tend to think it
didn't. And I don't require more of a cause. Namely I'm so far in no
need of a huge conspiracy 'at the government level, Reichstag fire
style thing, with Black Hawk remote control technology' and all that.
I want some facts or what seems to be facts explained without
resorting to UFO-style invaders and Great-Great World Conspiracies.
If the so-called 'video footage' and seismic data' are crap then this
theory collapses like the two towers. It is not just needed. Bring the
razor here! Take it from Occam he can't use it anyway 'cause he's
dead.

Again, this theory is not what I cling to desperately, it's rather a
hypothesis to explain the footage and seismic data IF (once again, IF)
they are not false.

> Your theory requires dozens of professions, in a profession that is based on
> maintaining human safety, purposely installing explosives into an occupied
> building.

Yes it does (Thank goodnes, not thousands). I'm not sure of dozens and
how many of them. And the building is not always occupied. And yes,
purporsely installing and not only purporsely, but skillfully. Add
construction engineers and maybe computer modelling specialists. The
data may be aquired through many ways including under the cover of
investigating the 1993 attack.

Regardless of the "plan", the moment the building dropped, everyone
> involved would know they were duped into assisting the murder of hundreds of
> firefighters and trapped victims. Your theory requires all of the people
> involved to be content to do this, forever.

Assisting the murder? No. It's perpetrators who did the murder. OK if
we discuss among other things the plane hijackng let's recall other
hijacking. I've already written that prior to 911 hijacking a plane
was hijacked in Ankara and it left three dead: a stewardess, a
passenger and one of the hijackers.

But the surviving hijackers could say they'd killed nobody! Their
hands were clean and they had meant no harm. The Saudi anti-terrorist
squad shot the victims! Yes, incidently, but the Saudis are to blame!
Would you agree? I doubt. The perpetratore as well as instigatots,
orginisers and financer are guilty, not those who tried to prevent
damage and loss of life.
>
> No need - the holes in your conspiracy theory are visible from across the room,

I agree, it consists of them almost by 100%. Say if the buildings were
designed and built so that they were just to collapse the way the did,
malodionolike, without any charges, then this theory again is not
needed. There could be many 'ifs' that could make it just unnecessary.
But if placing charges could prevent greater damage it can be
considered.

I've found on my computer an image, a satellite shot of the site after
the event. I thought I'd deleted it and now it's been found. I've just
looked at it again. Looks like the towers were really surrounded by
other, lower towers and other buildings, pretty close. Some buildings
that are very close to the site show big holes in their roofs. Those a
bit more distant look to be in a better shape. I don't know if these
were within reach of the towers' fragments in case the towers fell
uncontrollably aside. Maybe yes, maybe not. Try some 3-d modelling
with your computer or with some solid things like mathcboxes or
something like that. Keep the distances and hights in proportion to
the real ones. When looking at this I recall the 'dominoes theory',
this time of steel and concrete. One dominoe falls and it goes on.

>dozens of people working in secrecy

Secrecy is needed. Not sure of many dozens.

>- if they didn't weaken the beams,

Imagine there are several of you. You'are supposed to blow a bridge
with several rucksacks of explosives. And the bridge is heavily
guarded. And you are supposed to do it without weakended beams or or
predrilled holes. And to do it quickly.

Why such limitations? Very simple. It's war and you with the guys are
commandoes parachuted to do it. Mission impossible? Maybe yes, maybe
not. It depends, depends on many things, planning included. But such
things have been done with success.

> there is no guarantee that the whole
> idea would work "to save lives", so instead, you are just doing a half-ass job
> - something the demos guys DON'T do.

If you want guarantees look for someone who can give them to you.
Nobody to be seen? This happens for many things, not only terrorist
attacks. Again, it could have been concluded, that though there were
no such positive guarantees you want, negative guarantees, namely
greater damage could be predicted, if nothing was done.

> Yes Thousands - 1)inspectors 2)fire marshalls 3) demo specialists 4) their
> bosses 5)people in government (that would just LOVE for this to one day leak
> out and ruin their careers/lives) that would have to approve of such things 6)
> anyone in the building that MIGHT stumble over evidence - all agreeing that to
> plant explosives "for good reasons" into one of the world's busiest commercial
> centers is ok. Yes - planting explosives in an occupied
> building would get a conviction for attempted murder in our country:

Shooting in a plane and leavindg people dead is a crime in many
countries, I believe, including yours, but see above. Depends on
circumstances. It may form no corpus delicti. Using it to kill people
will.

> GUARANTEED. Hate? Yes - I believe you really have to hate us to come up with
> such an idea.
> You suggested that this company's employees participated in planting explosives
> under unsuspecting people, ultimately leading to the deaths of hundreds of
> firefighters that somehow missed the briefing that, "in a fire or other large
> emergency, the building will be leveled, regardless of who is inside". If I
> was in that company, I would have my lawyer working immediately to address the
> false claim you have made against them.

I don't want to offend anybody. My apologies if I have.

It was the terrorist attack that caused all the deaths here. The
firefighters didn't miss, they were 'people inside' and near the
buildings. Maybe someone blundered. Maybe it was because they were
just supposed to be where their duty told them to be without knowing
that this time it all was in vain.

Could the firemen be saved? How if the building started to collapse?

I once more state solemnly and even pompously I do no cling to this
theory. And I did not mean this particular company. But if the seismic
data and videos and other evidence are true (which is not a fact) then
they have to be explained. You just cannot overlook it.

{Legalistic considerations snipped as irrelevant here}

> Like all the firefighters...? Nonsense.

Again, could they be saved?

Planting explosives in an occupied building is damage control?

'The truth sometimes looks quite implausable' (c) some French writer.

> Remind me not to have you around in an emergency.

I hope none will come.

> If this whole plan was "for the good of the people", why would its efforts be
> hidden?

Watch out. The bad guys are continuing their business.

>>You know what kind of button it is.
> Yes, I do.
> Its an imaginary one. Next to my "toss a pie in Cheney's face" button.

I hope you have no button like 'kill Cheney' one.

> The pie must be thrown. So, without hesitation, I hurl a banana cream pie
> directly into Cheney's face.

Don't say you don't understand the difference between pie-throwing and
a murder of someone you may dislike very much. It's just fundamentally
different and it is different not because of an electric chair or what
else is used for punishing that.

>Then, my wife tells her friends what an idiot i
> am, and soon the news media and everyone else knows all about the button.

OK, your wife was just not there. A big difference indeed. She'd gone
shopping (jogging, paying visits), anything.
> I'm unable to imagine myself killing hundreds of firefighters on the chance
> that the building 'might' topple to the side.

After the event you saw happened they were unsavable. They could be
given 1-2-3 seconds of life inside the building. The price of that
could be lives of those outside. You might then live up with the
knowledge you could save someone and did't.

=====CONCLUSION==========

You've rammed so many proofs into my theory, your arguments are
burning bright like jet fuel so the shaky building of my theory is
about to collapse like the towers.

Let's stop at this. To continue we need an input from outside, from
other people who know better, who know the facts.

You say you've seen many demolitions. Maybe you still have contacts
with these people. Maybe it is all just the waste of time. But maybe
you'll find a chance to steal a couple of minutes from them and ask
about things we've discussed.

If they say the idea of pre-planting explosives has no value and will
cause more harm than prevent, or it was just unapplicable in this
particular situation or or anything else - believe them.

And if they recommend you not to waste time on cranky theories by some
cranky guys - follow theit recommendations.


Best regards

VV

[Krztalizer]

>
>> planting explosives in a building occupied by people would be WRONG.
>
>Under regular circumstances it is. Keeping dangerous things where
>people may get in a harm's way is wrong. For example, keeping guns,
>matches, knives or pills in homes where kids can reach them is wrong.

Please re-read my sentence you quoted -

"Planting", i.e., installed where they will do the most damage and 'where the
kids can get to them' is wrong.

>Driving a car with gasoline in the tank is wrong because the gasoline
>may catch fire in an accident and ETC, ETC, ETC.

gas in a motor vehicle is a rather frickin' huge stretch from planting
explosives in an occupied building, by an order of magnitude.

>What if there ws no terrorist attack and instead just a
>> small fire, one that triggered the explosives?

What "small fire" do you mean?

>No attack -no demolition. Small fire? Maybe. Fires take place in many
>places with lots of explosives and fuel, say, aircraft carriers, other
>men-of-war.

To make your analogy fit, those men-of-war would need torpedos placed at the
waterline by the builders, on the assumption that one day in the future, the
ship will need to be scuttled.

> Yet stupid people go on keeping the danderous stuff!

Not in occupied skyscrapers they don't. Your *theory* is that they were. My
theory is that you are completely wrong.

> If I were in the group of
>> mythical people who installed the explosives, I would be the first person
>to
>> say, "Wait a minute, guys - what happens if some terrorist finds out the
>> building is pre-wired and finds a way to trip the explosives?? We've just
>done their job FOR them!"
>
>Don't let him find out, don't let them use it. That's why you are
>supposed to keep silent. Whistle-blowing is not always a good thing.

I'd love to know the method you would use to determine which people would keep
this secret, and which ones would have some reservation that ultimately would
trip up the entire game. ONE building inspector or janitor that was not wholly
behind the project and you'd have the mother of all grand juries, lawsuits, and
that company would be torn apart.

>> See above - I'd have a pan, a large spoon, and I'd be banging them together
>and
>> screaming at the top of my lungs to get the word out. Knowing thousands of
>> people were in danger would galvanize me, and most everyone I know, into
>that
>> action. To be quiet is to be an accomplice.
>
>Making a big noise may be detrimental to other people's interests
>namely health and the life itself because bad guys may find out.

"We're wiring the place with explosives, for their own good." - that makes
sense to you? And what if terrorists do strike, but instead of doing minor
damage, such as in 1993, they trip the demos? Congrats, here's your letter of
appreciation from Al qaida.

>> Then, just like on every single controlled demo I've seen, there would be
>> recognizeable weakening explosions and someone pushing a plunger.
>
>Again, under normal conditions. You see people entering and leaving
>their homes through the doors, under normal conditions. In an
>emergency they may jump out of windows (No offence to Bill Gates).
>What was going on inside and below the surface level?

I can tell you what wasn't happening - a bunch of guys all watching the
firefighters on tv, saying, "Well, sucks they all have to die, but, dammit,
can't be helped."

>>What we all watched was a hugely damaged structure collapse after
>being >struck by a gigantic airliner. You may require more of a
>cause, but the WTC > >didn't.
>
>After, but not immediately. Maybe it really didn't. I tend to think it
>didn't.

That's a guess, sir. What we _know_ happened was the largest "conventional"
bombs ever used against a structure were effectively driven into the buildings
at high speed.

> And I don't require more of a cause. Namely I'm so far in no
>need of a huge conspiracy 'at the government level, Reichstag fire
>style thing, with Black Hawk remote control technology' and all that.
>I want some facts or what seems to be facts explained without
>resorting to UFO-style invaders and Great-Great World Conspiracies.

Your theory requires two groups of conspirators, one blue team, the other red,
that both combine to accomplish what the red team intended all along.

>If the so-called 'video footage' and seismic data' are crap then this
>theory collapses like the two towers. It is not just needed. Bring the
>razor here! Take it from Occam he can't use it anyway 'cause he's
>dead.

It doesn't surprise me that there are anomalies during this event - its not as
if we'd seen similar things on this scale to provide data to draw from, so
things like safes crashing through weakened floors or clusters of fire
extinguishers exploding in the fire, or any number of other things that would
be going "boom" in a conflagration like this should also be considered by your
theory.

>Again, this theory is not what I cling to desperately, it's rather a
>hypothesis to explain the footage and seismic data IF (once again, IF)
>they are not false.

I think its more a matter of interpretation and understanding than faked data.

>> Your theory requires dozens of professions, in a profession that is based
>on
>> maintaining human safety, purposely installing explosives into an occupied
>> building.
>
>Yes it does (Thank goodnes, not thousands). I'm not sure of dozens and
>how many of them. And the building is not always occupied.

False, VV. The towers were absolutely never empty; they lived and breathed
24/7 until the moment they died.

> And yes,
>purporsely installing and not only purporsely, but skillfully. Add
>construction engineers and maybe computer modelling specialists.

....all agreeing to place thousands of people in danger that were not directly
threatened at that time?

The
>data may be aquired through many ways including under the cover of
>investigating the 1993 attack.
>
> Regardless of the "plan", the moment the building dropped, everyone
>> involved would know they were duped into assisting the murder of hundreds
>of
>> firefighters and trapped victims. Your theory requires all of the people
>> involved to be content to do this, forever.
>
>Assisting the murder? No. It's perpetrators who did the murder. OK if
>we discuss among other things the plane hijackng let's recall other
>hijacking. I've already written that prior to 911 hijacking a plane
>was hijacked in Ankara and it left three dead: a stewardess, a
>passenger and one of the hijackers.
>
>But the surviving hijackers could say they'd killed nobody! Their
>hands were clean and they had meant no harm. The Saudi anti-terrorist
>squad shot the victims! Yes, incidently, but the Saudis are to blame!
>Would you agree? I doubt.

Then lets suggest that all airliners should be wired with explosives to keep
them from falling into the hands of terrorists? That fits your model, but not
reality.

> The perpetratore as well as instigatots,
>orginisers and financer are guilty, not those who tried to prevent
>damage and loss of life.

But at the time you suggest that explosives were planted by the blue team,
there was no red team attack in progress.

>> No need - the holes in your conspiracy theory are visible from across the
>room,
>
>I agree, it consists of them almost by 100%. Say if the buildings were
>designed and built so that they were just to collapse the way the did,
>malodionolike, without any charges, then this theory again is not
>needed. There could be many 'ifs' that could make it just unnecessary.

I agree, such as if two enormous airliners drilled the structures.

>But if placing charges could prevent greater damage it can be
>considered.

Then space aliens and Martin Bormann must also be considered, because these are
every bit as likely as the owners of the WTC colluding with building
inspectors, fire marshals, and demolition experts to plant explosives in an
occupied building.

>I've found on my computer an image, a satellite shot of the site after
>the event. I thought I'd deleted it and now it's been found. I've just
>looked at it again. Looks like the towers were really surrounded by
>other, lower towers and other buildings, pretty close. Some buildings
>that are very close to the site show big holes in their roofs. Those a
>bit more distant look to be in a better shape. I don't know if these
>were within reach of the towers' fragments in case the towers fell
>uncontrollably aside. Maybe yes, maybe not. Try some 3-d modelling
>with your computer or with some solid things like mathcboxes or
>something like that. Keep the distances and hights in proportion to
>the real ones. When looking at this I recall the 'dominoes theory',
>this time of steel and concrete. One dominoe falls and it goes on.

Dominos are solid and transfer their falling energy to their neighbors in
manners wholly different than skyscrapers - there have been collapses in large
buildings in other areas of the world that did not lead to the type of damage
you are describing.

>>dozens of people working in secrecy
>
>Secrecy is needed. Not sure of many dozens.

I am. Its not one building inspector and fire marshal, but a small army of
them that worked on the structure post-1993 attack. Then, the
owners/stockholders would also have to be willing participants, leading also to
insurance companies, and it branches out further: all participants in directly
placing people in danger from explosives planted not by the bad guys, but by
the "good guys".

>>- if they didn't weaken the beams,
>
>Imagine there are several of you. You'are supposed to blow a bridge
>with several rucksacks of explosives. And the bridge is heavily
>guarded. And you are supposed to do it without weakended beams or or
>predrilled holes. And to do it quickly.

So now you are switching theories to make it a military operation? Sir, I
don't have time to deal with every permutation you can dream up - besides, I
watched the events unfold. To recap, two airliners crashed into the
structures, causing damage that ultimately brought them down. We're right back
to our friend Occam's medicine chest.

>Why such limitations? Very simple. It's war and you with the guys are
>commandoes parachuted to do it.

Ok, now lets suggest that there is no bridge, no commandos, no guards, just two
large airliners, drilling the WTC. Why go off on tangents when we WATCHED this
happen?

> Mission impossible? Maybe yes, maybe
>not. It depends, depends on many things, planning included. But such
>things have been done with success.

Apples and airliners, sir. Of course commando attacks have occurred. The fact
that we know of them points out how well such operations can be kept a secret,
even when only commandos are involved. Now, toss in the FBI, stockholders,
fire marshals, ETC ETC ETC and tell me how long your "bridge attack" could be
kept a secret.

>> there is no guarantee that the whole
>> idea would work "to save lives", so instead, you are just doing a half-ass
>job
>> - something the demos guys DON'T do.
>
>If you want guarantees look for someone who can give them to you.

That would be the controlled demo guys - the only folks on the planet with the
corporate knowledge and experience at bringing down structures of this size.
Except they won't do it when there are innocent lives sitting in offices above
their demo charges! Geez.

>Nobody to be seen? This happens for many things, not only terrorist
>attacks. Again, it could have been concluded, that though there were
>no such positive guarantees you want, negative guarantees, namely
>greater damage could be predicted, if nothing was done.

That assumes that this mythical group knew that one day, the WTC would be so
damaged that a collapse was inevitable AND it would fall to the side, requiring
the demolition. Gi-frickin-gantic assumption there buddy.

>> Yes Thousands - 1)inspectors 2)fire marshalls 3) demo specialists 4) their
>> bosses 5)people in government (that would just LOVE for this to one day
>leak
>> out and ruin their careers/lives) that would have to approve of such things
>6)
>> anyone in the building that MIGHT stumble over evidence - all agreeing that
>to
>> plant explosives "for good reasons" into one of the world's busiest
>commercial
>> centers is ok. Yes - planting explosives in an occupied
>> building would get a conviction for attempted murder in our country:
>
>Shooting in a plane and leavindg people dead is a crime in many
>countries, I believe, including yours, but see above.

Those events occurred DURING a hostage event. Did the Saudis start shooting
into the a plane years before the hostage situation occurred?? GEEZ

>Depends on
>circumstances. It may form no corpus delicti. Using it to kill people
>will.

NOT true - planting explosives in an occupied building IS a felony; attempting
to overwhelm hijackers IS NOT.

>> GUARANTEED. Hate? Yes - I believe you really have to hate us to come up
>with
>> such an idea.
>> You suggested that this company's employees participated in planting
>explosives
>> under unsuspecting people, ultimately leading to the deaths of hundreds of
>> firefighters that somehow missed the briefing that, "in a fire or other
>large
>> emergency, the building will be leveled, regardless of who is inside". If
>I
>> was in that company, I would have my lawyer working immediately to address
>the
>> false claim you have made against them.
>
>I don't want to offend anybody. My apologies if I have.



>It was the terrorist attack that caused all the deaths here. The
>firefighters didn't miss, they were 'people inside' and near the
>buildings. Maybe someone blundered.

Maybe it was Martin Bormann. Every bit as likely.

> Maybe it was because they were
>just supposed to be where their duty told them to be without knowing
>that this time it all was in vain.

Yes, exactly - and the people planting your mythical demo charges would have to
know that, just as in 1993, hundreds of FF would be on scene, in mortal danger
specifically from those non-existant charges.

>Could the firemen be saved? How if the building started to collapse?

By... uhh... adding a few mythical explosives to the fire and general chaos?
Wait, that doesn't make any sense, does it.

>I once more state solemnly and even pompously I do no cling to this
>theory.

Then why take off on bizarre "bridge assault" tangents to try and make it work?

>And I did not mean this particular company. But if the seismic
>data and videos and other evidence are true (which is not a fact) then
>they have to be explained. You just cannot overlook it.

After many more such events, perhaps we would understand all of the vagaries of
such terrible things. Until then, consider that the buildings were horribly
damaged by terrorists in hijacked airliners, trying to bring them down.

>> Like all the firefighters...? Nonsense.
>
>Again, could they be saved?

or what, sacrificed? I take it you dont know any firefighters. I grew up
playing at Company 7 in Phoenix, living with Engineer Loren Long as my
surrogate dad. I can picture him rushing into the WTC, but what I cannot/ will
not accept is the mental image of -dozens- of people agreeing to plant
explosives in an occupied building, "JUST IN CASE".

>Planting explosives in an occupied building is damage control?

According to your baseless theory, yes.

>'The truth sometimes looks quite implausable' (c) some French writer.

So lets not rule out aliens and Marty just yet, huh?

>> Remind me not to have you around in an emergency.
>
>I hope none will come.
>
>> If this whole plan was "for the good of the people", why would its efforts
>be
>> hidden?
>
>Watch out. The bad guys are continuing their business.

So we need to mine MORE skyscrapers, "just in case"???

>>>You know what kind of button it is.
>> Yes, I do.
>> Its an imaginary one. Next to my "toss a pie in Cheney's face" button.
>
>I hope you have no button like 'kill Cheney' one.

<shaking my head> No. I dont murder people, and neither do the Controlled
Demo people.

>> The pie must be thrown. So, without hesitation, I hurl a banana cream pie
>> directly into Cheney's face.
>
>Don't say you don't understand the difference between pie-throwing and
>a murder of someone you may dislike very much. It's just fundamentally
>different and it is different not because of an electric chair or what
>else is used for punishing that.

whatever. You are the person that mentioned murdering our vice president - all
I did was toss an imaginary pie.

>>Then, my wife tells her friends what an idiot i
>> am, and soon the news media and everyone else knows all about the button.
>
>OK, your wife was just not there. A big difference indeed. She'd gone
>shopping (jogging, paying visits), anything.

She was off planting demo charges with Martin Bormann. That's my theory at
least.

>> I'm unable to imagine myself killing hundreds of firefighters on the chance
>> that the building 'might' topple to the side.
>
>After the event you saw happened they were unsavable. They could be
>given 1-2-3 seconds of life inside the building. The price of that
>could be lives of those outside.

As long as we insert the massive assumption that such damage on the upper
floors would cause a building to become unstable at its base, allowing it to
fall sideways.

> You might then live up with the
>knowledge you could save someone and did't.

"Thank goodness we planted those explosives!" -Not-

>=====CONCLUSION==========
>
>You've rammed so many proofs into my theory, your arguments are
>burning bright like jet fuel so the shaky building of my theory is
>about to collapse like the towers.
>
>Let's stop at this. To continue we need an input from outside, from
>other people who know better, who know the facts.
>
>You say you've seen many demolitions.

we call this new invention "t-e-l-e-v-i-s-i-o-n'. One of the things that Fox
loves to show is old, disused UNOCCUPIED structures such as forums and
delapidated apartment buildings being brought down. Its a part of modern life.
You have never seen such an event...?

> Maybe you still have contacts
>with these people.

Only if you count my wife and Marty.

> Maybe it is all just the waste of time. But maybe
>you'll find a chance to steal a couple of minutes from them and ask
>about things we've discussed.

Why? You suggested above that your theory is already in flames.

>If they say the idea of pre-planting explosives has no value and will
>cause more harm than prevent, or it was just unapplicable in this
>particular situation or or anything else - believe them.
>
>And if they recommend you not to waste time on cranky theories by some
>cranky guys - follow theit recommendations.

I won't ignore the cranky theories when remaining silent leaves the theorists
with the last word, however wrong I know it to be.

>Best regards
..
/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

[VV]

(Krztalizer) wrote in message >...

> "Planting", i.e., installed where they will do the most damage and 'where the
> kids can get to them' is wrong.

Oops, maybe it's a wrong word. English is still foreign to me. Let's
call it putting, placing whichever. As to the 'most damage' - no. They
must be put where they can do what they are supposed to do: to cut the
steel in different parts SIMULTANEOUSLY or otherwise in the way that
prevents the building or its huge parts from falling aside. And
prevents kids or the bad guys from getting hold of them.

> gas in a motor vehicle is a rather frickin' huge stretch from planting
> explosives in an occupied building, by an order of magnitude.

It is. Analogies help illustrate, but often fail to explain. I take
this one back.

> >What if there ws no terrorist attack and instead just a
> >> small fire, one that triggered the explosives?
>
> What "small fire" do you mean?

What small fire do YOU mean in your previous post of 2004-01-23
10:40:35 PST? I think we both mean a fire that is limited enough in
scale to put the whole building including its internal structure in
danger of collapse. If the big fire that really started could be
extuinguished or limited in scale before a certain moment it could all
end differently.

> To make your analogy fit, those men-of-war would need torpedos placed at the
> waterline by the builders, on the assumption that one day in the future, the
> ship will need to be scuttled.

Usually no. But if there is a great probability of the least event
then maybe they need. For example if in 1993 there was a situation
that might lead to such a need. There are other ways to scuttle the
ships however.
>
> > Yet stupid people go on keeping the danderous stuff!
> Not in occupied skyscrapers they don't.

Maybe they used not to. MAybe not.
>
> I'd love to know the method you would use to determine which people would keep
> this secret, and which ones would have some reservation that ultimately would
> trip up the entire game.

Nothing special. The same methods that are used when choosing spies,
lawyers, attorneys, BTW doctors, Army commanders etc. Reliability,
ability to work on the 'need-to-know' basis. Not boasters. Not drunks.
Not drug-addicts. Decent, rliable people. If I believe you no secret
can be kept because someone will talk outside.

ONE building inspector or janitor that was not wholly
> behind the project and you'd have the mother of all grand juries, lawsuits, and
> that company would be torn apart.

Of course such risks exist. But if you were a junitor and found some
still box with wires inside what then? There are lots of ducts, boxes
and other things in all buildings. And lots of wires. It can all be
hidden.
>
> "We're wiring the place with explosives, for their own good." - that makes
> sense to you? And what if terrorists do strike, but instead of doing minor
> damage, such as in 1993, they trip the demos? Congrats, here's your letter of
> appreciation from Al qaida.

That is another reason to keep it secret. Access to the demos must be
prevented. Access to the control system that initiates them is
prevented through many ways including codes. They may guess that
something like that is here but where exactly and how it is controlled
- they shouldn't know.

> That's a guess, sir. What we _know_ happened was the largest "conventional"
> bombs ever used against a structure were effectively driven into the buildings
> at high speed.
>
> Your theory requires two groups of conspirators, one blue team, the other red,
> that both combine to accomplish what the red team intended all along.

No. The red team always wants more damage. The other team's goals are
the opposite.

> It doesn't surprise me that there are anomalies during this event - its not as
> if we'd seen similar things on this scale to provide data to draw from, so
> things like safes crashing through weakened floors or clusters of fire
> extinguishers exploding in the fire, or any number of other things that would
> be going "boom" in a conflagration like this should also be considered by your
> theory.

That's right as I see now. It could be a can of solvent/paint/varnish.
It could be a bottle of hair spray. It could be a bottle of French
parfume. It could be fuel vapors catching fire. Even without all this
during fires flames burst out of windows when glass is broken. Only
seismic data remains then.

> I think its more a matter of interpretation and understanding than faked data.

Yes. If certain peaks of a seismogram can be explained rationally, of
course.

> False, VV. The towers were absolutely never empty; they lived and breathed
> 24/7 until the moment they died.

But not that everybody saw everything. If you bring things in boxes
marked 'A new super-booper computers' say for the payment system that
was there others cannot find out what was inside the boxes.

> ...all agreeing to place thousands of people in danger that were not directly
> threatened at that time?

They were threatened all the time. After 1993 probably that was
understood very clearly.
>
> Then lets suggest that all airliners should be wired with explosives to keep
> them from falling into the hands of terrorists? That fits your model, but not
> reality.

Reality? True the planes are not wired this way. But shooting a
hijacked plane was considered. With passengers, BTW. To prevent
greater damage, BTW. Because it was believed the passengers and the
crews were not savable, BTW. How did the fourth plane fall?

Another option is to equip the planes with remote control systems. If
a plane is hijacked the terrorists cannot control it and it will be
controlled from the ground.
>
> But at the time you suggest that explosives were planted by the blue team,
> there was no red team attack in progress.

What is progress in this case? Recruiting, training, planning,
organising not included? It never stops. It is going on right now. And
you seldom know the time, the place and the manner of yet another
'progress' to take place.
>
> I agree, such as if two enormous airliners drilled the structures.
> Then space aliens and Martin Bormann must also be considered, because these are
> every bit as likely as the owners of the WTC colluding with building
> inspectors, fire marshals, and demolition experts to plant explosives in an
> occupied building.

Who owned the WTC? I believe it was some public or municipal entity
who hires people you mention, except Bormann. And where is the razor?
Did Ockam take it from you to prevent Martin Bormann from coming to
the scene? Martin Bormann or Heinrich Mueller deserve a separate
theory.

> Dominos are solid and transfer their falling energy to their neighbors in
> manners wholly different than skyscrapers - there have been collapses in large
> buildings in other areas of the world that did not lead to the type of damage
> you are describing.

They are solid and there are many differencies with towers. Yet parts
of the towers could fall upon other towers and destroy them. What
about 3-d modelling I wrote about?

> Its not one building inspector and fire marshal, but a small army of
> them that worked on the structure post-1993 attack.

AFAIK some of them really found strange things but it never went
further. It didn't become part of the investigation. All steel sold as
scrap. No foreign rescue teams were admitted as it often takes place
after disasters of such a scale.

Then, the
> owners/stockholders would also have to be willing participants, leading also to
> insurance companies

Again, who were the owners? And these insurance companies were given a
huge financial assistance by the government almost immediately. The
airlines were given it too, BTW.

and it branches out further: all participants in directly
> placing people in danger from explosives planted not by the bad guys, but by
> the "good guys".

Bad guys did that. Period.

> So now you are switching theories to make it a military operation? Sir, I
> don't have time to deal with every permutation you can dream up - besides, I
> watched the events unfold.

It all was NOT a peace operation. I just wanted to explain that some
stages of a peacetime demo job namely weakening the beams could and
must be omitted in this case.

> Ok, now lets suggest that there is no bridge, no commandos, no guards, just two
> large airliners, drilling the WTC. Why go off on tangents when we WATCHED this
> happen?

Don't go off if seismic data are false. Keep strait.

> Apples and airliners, sir. Of course commando attacks have occurred. The fact
> that we know of them points out how well such operations can be kept a secret,

But one of them could talk it out!

> even when only commandos are involved. Now, toss in the FBI, stockholders,
> fire marshals, ETC ETC ETC and tell me how long your "bridge attack" could be
> kept a secret.
>
> That would be the controlled demo guys - the only folks on the planet with the
> corporate knowledge and experience at bringing down structures of this size.
> Except they won't do it when there are innocent lives sitting in offices above
> their demo charges! Geez.
>

> That assumes that this mythical group knew that one day, the WTC would be so
> damaged that a collapse was inevitable AND it would fall to the side, requiring
> the demolition. Gi-frickin-gantic assumption there buddy.

Not would but could. And has nearly been once.

> >Shooting in a plane and leavindg people dead is a crime in many
> >countries, I believe, including yours, but see above.
>
> Those events occurred DURING a hostage event. Did the Saudis start shooting
> into the a plane years before the hostage situation occurred?? GEEZ

No. But they have been preparing for that for years. And did the
charges in question came off before 'the event' or about one hour
later?
>
> NOT true - planting explosives in an occupied building IS a felony; attempting
> to overwhelm hijackers IS NOT.
>
> Yes, exactly - and the people planting your mythical demo charges would have to
> know that, just as in 1993, hundreds of FF would be on scene, in mortal danger
> specifically from those non-existant charges.

What if the FF were not in the know? Someone blundered.

>
> After many more such events, perhaps we would understand all of the vagaries of
> such terrible things. Until then, consider that the buildings were horribly
> damaged by terrorists in hijacked airliners, trying to bring them down.

They were. And that where yhe differences might begin. The buildings
were doomed. The question is whether other towers with maybe hundreds
people inside were.

> or what, sacrificed?

What way of avoiding can you offer?

> I take it you dont know any firefighters. I grew up
> playing at Company 7 in Phoenix, living with Engineer Loren Long as my
> surrogate dad. I can picture him rushing into the WTC, but what I cannot/ will
> not accept is the mental image of -dozens- of people agreeing to plant
> explosives in an occupied building, "JUST IN CASE".

A highly probable one.

> So we need to mine MORE skyscrapers, "just in case"???

A single tower in a desert - no. The towers like the WTC - maybe.
Though other ways of preventing it look better.
>
> <shaking my head> No. I dont murder people.

We're discussing murdoroues things here. Cheney and the pie are
irrelevant here.

> >> The pie must be thrown.

Out of this discussion? Yes.

> whatever. You are the person that mentioned murdering our vice president
- all > I did was toss an imaginary pie.

No need for him here, but who knows?

> As long as we insert the massive assumption that such damage on the upper
> floors would cause a building to become unstable at its base, allowing it to
> fall sideways.

I do not mean a domino-style fall. If there were no or little risk of
events taking place this way all theory falls in flame of shame.

> >You say you've seen many demolitions.
>
> we call this new invention "t-e-l-e-v-i-s-i-o-n'. One of the things that Fox
> loves to show is old, disused UNOCCUPIED structures such as forums and
> delapidated apartment buildings being brought down. Its a part of modern life.
> You have never seen such an event...?

Live -no. On TV-yes. It's the cheapest way of demolition.

BR

VV