the complete minute by minute timeline on 911

"VV" wrote in message
om...
nt (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

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

"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

"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.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
"VV" wrote in message
om...
nt (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

"VV" wrote in message
om...
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...
"VV" wrote in message
om...
nt (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

nt (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

nt (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

nt (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

"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