As I recall it, the whole thing started just because I mentioned that article. Someone on this list posted a list of the top 25 or so most important censored articles of the year, and the physicist's article was among them. That was the context to me of this whole discussion. Ignore it if you want. I makes no difference to me what you think.
----- Original Message ---- From: authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:33:44 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: of the assailing on FFL --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, Angela Mailander <mailander111@ ...> wrote: > > My comment about falling buildings was in the context of an > article by a reputable physicist which you conveniently forgot. No, it wasn't in that context at all. You conveniently made that up. > As it happens, however, I did see lots of buildings come down-- > not just three or four, but most of the buildings in town and > in more than one town. They came down due to bombs, fire, and > airplanes crashing into them. I've also seen buildings come > down due to controlled demolition. I saw two live, one in > Cleveland and one in San Francisco. And I saw about ten > examples on video. While comparing the two alone is by no > means enough, Not only isn't it enough, it's entirely irrelevant. That was *my* point, which you've conveniently overlooked. > it is the common sense beginning which anyone could have observed > (and many did) especially in the context of dozens of witnesses > who heard explosions prior to the impact of the planes. It's "common sense" only among those who don't have the good sense to realize how absurd a controlled-demoliti on scenario is on its face, and among those who haven't bothered to read the NIST's highly detailed report on its three-year investigation of the collapse, nor any of the other debunking work that's been done. As to the "explosions, " in the first place, eye- and ear-witness testimony as to what happened in the course of a disaster is notoriously unreliable. In the second place, the NIST found no evidence of any explosions (including no bits and pieces of controlled- demolition gear in the rubble). In the third place--most obviously--if you're going to argue controlled demolition, explosions heard *before the planes hit* would be irrelevant, since the buildings didn't collapse until much later. Explosions right before the collapses is what you'd have heard if it were controlled demolition, but there's no evidence of any such explosions. In any case, it's clear that the reports of explosions before the planes hit were simply mistaken. For more, have a look at these videos: http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=CRCTkSJOViY Lobby and basement explosions explained http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=jir7yWTroN8 "Pre-Collapse Explosions" Identified http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=WJpsxQ3UI30 John Schroeder & Secondary Explosions Also: http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=tacYjsS- g6k Controlled Demolition Not Possible These are part of a very good series called "9/11 Debunked," which you should really watch all of. But you won't. > Bottom line is that I do not know for a fact what happened, but I > do know for a fact that the official story doesn't wash, and that > only adds to the suspicion. No, of course you don't know that "for a fact." What a silly thing to say. The fact is that *everything* either you and Bhairitu and anybody else here has proposed as "evidence" against the official explanation of the collapse *has been debunked* quite definitively. But all we need to know about your approach to finding out the truth is this: "But I do not care what you believe, nor do I really want to argue with you about this. You will not change your mind, and I will not change mine." Very scholarly, Angela. Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
