--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "hugheshugo" > > <richardhughes103@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander > > > <mailander111@> wrote: > > > > > >> <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). > > > > I saw a documentary about 9/11 and vibration was definately mentioned > as a cause, the building may have rattled itself apart. But thinking > more about it perhaps it was the collapse of the upper sections due > to the infrastructure melting. My memory may not be so good on this.
I suppose the vibrations on impact could have weakened the structures so that they came down more easily once the damage from the fires was bad enough. I've just never heard anything about vibrations. <snip> > > > 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. > > I mentioned the Israelis because they have to deal with all > sorts of possibilities and they were astonished as they hadn't > even suspected this, maybe others thought otherwise I don't know. A lot of people suspect Mossad knew it was going to happen (although the story about all the Israelis who worked at the towers not coming to work on September 11 is a vicious myth). <snip> > > 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. > > "Benign neglect" I like that. Courtesy Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who coined the phrase in 1970 in an entirely different context. I don't believe anyone is cynical > enough to plan or allow something like that to happen, > but they made the most of it by blaming Iraq, Rumsfeld > seizing the opportunity. My sister lives in California > and she was annoyed enough with CNN to ring up and > complain that every time they talked about the upcoming > Iraq invasion they showed a picture of the remains of the WTC as a > backdrop, a subtle bit of manipulation. Good for her. But they're *still doing it* (not necessarily CNN, but the administration continues to try to link Iraq and 9/11). <snip> > > > 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. > > A's original statement was about academia I just edited that bit ;-) Sure. The question is whether Angela's sources for her conspiracy theories are as academic as she would like us to believe. > > > 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. > > Disinformation by people with something to hide! sounds like a > conspiracy, Yup. > what real dirt do you have in mind? With regard to 9/11 specifically, I'm not convinced, as I mentioned above, that there wasn't some degree of foreknowledge in certain quarters, or that some measures weren't deliberately omitted that would have made the attack less likely to be successful. Or perhaps simply evidence of the grossest kind of incompetence and the steps taken to cover it up afterward. > Still, it wouldn't surprise me, they say the CIA infiltrated UFO > groups in the 50's and fed them rubbish to make the public think they > were crazy because the less people believed that UFO's were real the > less chance there was of mistaking incoming russian missiles for the > space brothers. Is it true? I'm not sure if people need help > believing crazy things but it's a good story. Don't know whether it's true; it wouldn't surprise me either. On the other hand, I do think the government has evidence of UFO activity that it's keeping secret-- not necessarily of spacecraft from other planets, just evidence of something very weird going on that it can't explain. Which, if true, could account for the CIA infiltration of UFO groups just as well as the theory you've heard. The government obviously doesn't want to appear to be troubled by inexplicable occurrences, if it can help it. But that's exactly the type of disinformation strategy I'm talking about: it keeps those who are inclined to pursue conspiracies busy chasing red herrings, and, perhaps more importantly, it also keeps them looking like nutcases so nobody will take them seriously even if they *do* accidentally stumble onto evidence of real dirt.
