Leigh, I appreciate your message and rejection of those who refer to nut cases.
However, I think you dismiss the issue of the complete drop-down collapses of THREE WTC buildings in one day a bit too hastily (e.g. 9-11-2001 was a day of calm winds, not winds of 50-100 mph). I will send you under private mail -- for personal use only and not for distribution -- David Ray Griffin's chapter "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account cannot be True". It is pretty comprehensive, including analysis of what firefighters had to say the day after 9-11-2001 (which took a lawsuit by the NY Times to get into the public record). It is quite different than Steve Jones' work, proving that there is more than one way to tackle this issue. Paul Z. ************************************************************************** THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 --"a benchmark in 9/11 research", review Volume 23 (2006), RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, P. Zarembka, ed, Elsevier *********************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:43:47 -0700 From: Leigh Meyers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Steve Jones as a 9-11 nut case; Identities of hijackers Paul Zarembka wrote: > So, given this easily demonstrable problem with the official > conspiracy story of bin-Laden-and-19-Arabs-with-boxcutters, why does > the 9/11 Commission go ahead naming the same names without even once interrogating > their identities? Perhaps simply because its Executive Director, who was > instrumental in controlling the agenda of the Commission, is an earlier > co-author with Dr. Condoleezza Rice and is now appointed in the State > Department to a major position. > > Many, many people in the Arab world know such things, things which a > person like Cockburn choses to completely ignore and instead refer to nut > cases. It's the definition of conspiracy that perturbs me, as it looks to be an attempt to silence or quell criticism of *any* part of the official story. For instance, I don't accept the demolition theory of the collapse of any building. I know there was fuel storage for a backup generator in one of the buildings that *could* have exploded (overheated diesel), but 'controlled charging'? I don't think so. On the issue of the main towers: Take the top off a building with... what... 50-100 mph winds blowing across it, and the torsional flex alone would eventually break it apart. You could demonstrate this effect with a cardboard box sans top and a large fan used on a theater stage for simulating wind. OTOH, the idea that within hours of the hits, they had the f'ing passports and identity papers. Right. We're talking about people who lose baggage, even AFTER terrorism becomes a grave threat.... USATODAY.com - Airlines lost 10000 bags a day in '05 http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2006-02-16-lost-bags-usat_x.htm We're talking about the "managers" of disaster aid for hurricane Katrina. ...and they f'ing found the passports, had the name of the lead man, UBL. Within hours... I think an explanation is in order. Am I a "conspiracy nut"? If you thinks so, *your* mind has been pre-washed... Sanforized... [A Registered Trademark of Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc. for fabrics processed by machine so that residual shrinkage will not exceed 1% in either direction. The firm licenses its process and mark in the US and abroad under a quality control program. <http://www.brentwood.co.th/glossary.html> Leigh http://leighm.net/ "I used to say, a wee bit of time ago, that you haven't lived till you've dated a truly hot stripper. The ride nearly always ends in a fiery wreck but goddamn is it worth it! --Anonymous Florida-based Terrorist while attending flight school at Huffman Aviation
