--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > >>> I've seen what airplanes do when they hit buildings---they > never behave as the twin towers did<<< > > This is almost surreal. For a start, how much data about planes > hitting buildings can their possibly be in order to make such a > statement?
When somebody says something like this, you have to wonder about all the *other* things they claim to have seen. <snip> > They only fell > down because the designers hadn't taken account of the > vibrations a plane would cause if it collided I'm not sure this is correct, though. I've never heard anything about vibrations having brought the towers down. After all, quite some time elapsed between the time each tower was hit and when it collapsed (almost an hour and a half for the north tower, a little under an hour for the south tower). Furthermore, as I understand it, the towers were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a plane--just not a plane as big as those that hit them. > 9/11 took the world by surprise, even the Israeli secret service > didn't have a contingency plan for people using hi-jacked aircraft > as suicide bombs. There may not have been a contingency plan, but the possibility of hijacked planes being used as suicide bombs on tall buildings was most definitely considered a possibility for quite some time before 9/11. There was no immediate response from the government > because it was over before anyone had worked out (or could even > believe)what was going on, not because they wanted or had planned > it Then again, the infamous "Rebuilding America's Defenses" paper put out in 2000 by the neocon Project for a New American Century contains this sentence: "The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor." "Wanted or planned it" is one thing; welcomed it might be quite another. Refrained from taking steps to stop it might be yet another. And there are bits and pieces of evidence that some in the administration and elsewhere *did* know something big was about to happen that day. <snip> > Of course the targets were symbolic, what greater experession of > American global reach and power than the world trade centre. > Remember that Al-queda's main goal is an end to American > interference in Arab affairs? It's the most obvious target and > designed for immediate dramatic effect. It worked too, some people > can't accept the raw viciousness of it and have to start wildly > theorising about govt plots, shape shifting reptiles ancient > orders of atlantean monks who secretly rule the world. I'm with you in rejecting the notion that the administration planned and carried it out. I don't reject out of hand, however, the possibility that there was some foreknowledge, or at least some "benign neglect" in terms of taking measures to protect the U.S. from *some* kind of major terrorist attack. <snip> > >>>> Books published in English especially will not be enough > because especially in America there is no academic freedom to write > and publish anything you like.>>>>> > > Damn right there is no freedom to publish anything you like, you > have to provide evidence for a start, and demonstrate you're > qualified to assess the evidence, it's called peer-review and it's > a good way to start working out what is from what isn't. That's true in the academic/scholarly field, but not the case at all in the area of popular publishing, not to mention on the Web. > I've yet to read a conspiracy theory that didn't say more about > the people writing it. As I've said here before, I strongly suspect that there's a great deal of *disinformation* put out by those with something to hide, for the express purpose of sidetracking folks like Angela and Bronte and Bhairitu into pursuing loony conspiracy theories instead of the real dirt.
