Re: Let's Roll
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:49 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Dan wrote: So, is your argument that the first step in the plan was to facilitate a major terrorist attack on the US, like 9-11? Via negligence, yes. But I'm not saying Bush knew anything about it. Hell he was on vacation most of the time and he's as dumb as a shirt anyway. Cheney, Rumsfeld are the puppeteers. All they had to do was pretend that they didn't think they had to worry about Bin Laden et all and pooh-pooh a few reports that the terrorists were stirring. Its an easy conspiracy to contain because all you have to do is have a few people in key positions act dumb and fail to act. And that's pretty much what happened. So, your view is that Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted a massive terrorist attack on the US in order to drastically reorder United States and to impose their view of the New World Order? Is that the claim? I'd also like to note, this theory is immunized from falsification...because it survives independent of evidence. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Original Message: - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:33:10 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Let's Roll Bush wasn't interested in nation buildingboth his statements and his actions indicated that he thought it was a do-gooder waster of effort.before 9-11. The article seems to be based on statements made by Secretary Powell who, in retrospect, had about as much influence on the Bush White House as Dan Rather. Were there any statements by Bush or Rumsfeld or Cheney? I'll answer this one quickly because it is a point that can easily be adressed with a few quotes. With all due respect, Doug, I think you are getting old like I am and forgot who was on which side in the debate over withrawing from the Balkins. :-) The following website states the two positions quote well: quote of position 1 Some foreign policy experts argue that peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions are an appropriate use of American military power in pursuit of U.S. interests abroad. Resources unique to the military should be harnessed in support of international efforts to resolve humanitarian crises and in UN or alliance peace operations. They emphasize that the U.S. should provide international leadership in preventing and or ending violence, using military power as necessary to do so. end quote quote of position 2 Other national security experts assert that peacekeeping operations distract the military from its principal mission, which is to defend U.S. territory and the physical security of its citizens, and to promote American interests abroad. They point out that the use of military forces must be limited in order for the military to remain prepared for strategic combat missions and major regional conflicts. It is also critical for the U.S. military to be active in collective defense arrangements with important allies in areas such as Europe and Asia. The unique demands of peacekeeping erode the military's war-fighting capacity and leave it unprepared to defend security interests. end quote The first position, working with our allies in Europe was the position advocated by Powell. The second position, was Rumsfeld's and Cheney's. We can see that from other websites. For Powell's position, we have: http://www.alb-net.com/pipermail/albsa-info/2001-June/001868.html quote Stay with your words. I was impressed with the very clear message Colin Powell conveyed to other ministers and me both in Skopje and Budapest: the United States will maintain its presence in southeast Europe. It?s a very good message, with certain political weight. Such a message has put an end to all gossiping. end quote Joe Biden, nicely summarized Rumsfeld's position in a Senate speech against it, given at: http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=229872; quote Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to take strong issue with remarks by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as summarized in the Washington Post on May 18 and subsequently reproduced in their entirety on the paper's website, that he is ``pushing'' to pull U.S. troops out of Bosnia. According to Secretary Rumsfeld, ``the military job [in Bosnia] was done three or four years ago.'' end quote In addition, Powell actually was winning this arguement. He lost most of the arguements with Rumsfeld and Cheney, but did win some. Dan M. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Original Message: - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:33:10 -0800 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Let's Roll OK, let me accept that he was more interested in Iraq than AQ. The number of public statements he made on the dangers of appeasing North Korea were significantly greater than the number of public statements made about Iraq. Yet, I saw no indication that he was preparing the nation for an invasion of North Korea. Know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, Dan. Private statements as reveiled by administration insiders are much more compelling than public statments. Both would be needed for an massive invasion. Quit planning and a fait accompli might work for a small clandesent effort. But, something as big as the invasion of Iraq could not happen quietly and quickly. Bush I, even after UN approval, had to get Congressional approval for Gulf War I. Bush got Congressional approval for Gulf War II, even after the omnibus resolution. One way or another, he would have to prepare the nation for such an action. You can see such a preparation after 9-11. You could even see the start of it with Bill Clinton's early '98 speach. But, I don't recall, and I'm pretty sure there wasn't, a comparable speech by Bush before 9-11. Thus, 9 months or so into his presidency, there was no indication of the first steps needed to prepare the nation for war with Iraq. Second, the private conversations you quote don't include statements akin to you know that invading Iraq may be necessary or we need to make a case that will convince Congress to invade Iraq. If there were plans to invade Iraq, which requires Congressional approval, then the first steps in planning would need to include such actions. How is this inconsistent with him _knowing_ that there must have been a connection? Why is this evidence that he planned on invading Iraq before 9-11. Why couldn't it just be the perspective that it takes the resources of a country to mount such an attackand knowing that Hussein has supported other terrorists with cash, him believing that it must have happened again. Because it follow that if the projectionn of power into the middle east and regime change in Iraq were administration priorities (as illustrated in points 1, 2 and 4), then the administration would be anxious to find an excuse to invade Iraq. Both were priorities for Bush I, and he deliberately stopped Gulf War I before invading. James Baker made a very convincing case why invading Iraq would have been a mistake. Projecting power in Asia and regiem change in North Korea were defense priorities of Clinton. He did not plan an invasion of North Korea. Well, it was a goal of the Clinton administration to remove Kim from power. They thought that this would provide an opportunity to defuse the Korean crisis. This was after Clinton decided not to bomb the nuclear facilities. But, he had no plans to invade. I know that Bush I had the removal of Hussein as a goal of his policy. Clinton certainly rattled the saber more in 1998 than Bush did pre-9-11. So if there had been an incident and Clinton had invaded and then it turned out that the incident had absolutely nothing to do with N. Korea then Clintons proclivity to unseat Kim would have nothing to do with why he invaded??? OK, let me give a parallel. Lets assume that Clinton, mistakenly, was conviced that North Korea was working with/behind the terrorists. These terrorists attacked the US, and he then says we have to invade North Korea. That's a totally consistent scenario. All that is required is the belief that Iraq/Hussein was connected to terrorism and, in the post 9-11 world, that Hussein needed to be removed for the security of the US. We know that Bush believes in creationism. I think that, given that, it is reasonable to assume that he actually believed that Hussein was the most significant risk to the US and had strong ties to AQ. All this conjecture assumes is that Bush's reasoning is faulty. For example, Powell stated that the sanctions were working with Iraq early in 2001 and that no military action was needed. Why is it you think that Powell is a good indicator of what the administration was thinking? Whatever he said had only coincidental importance to what the ral Bush insiders were thinking. Because that statement wouldn't have stood by itself if it contradicted plans. It would hurt the plans to invade Iraq. You quote Richards stating that Bush was more interested in Iraq than AQ. He also stated that Bush wasn't very interested in AQdidn't consider them to be a serious threat. If the Bush administration had Iraq as a priority, wouldn't Richards, or Wilkerson, or someone have gotten wind of that pre 9-11? Clarke relates, I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense
Re: Let's Roll
Dan wrote: So, is your argument that the first step in the plan was to facilitate a major terrorist attack on the US, like 9-11? Via negligence, yes. But I'm not saying Bush knew anything about it. Hell he was on vacation most of the time and he's as dumb as a shirt anyway. Cheney, Rumsfeld are the puppeteers. All they had to do was pretend that they didn't think they had to worry about Bin Laden et all and pooh-pooh a few reports that the terrorists were stirring. Its an easy conspiracy to contain because all you have to do is have a few people in key positions act dumb and fail to act. And that's pretty much what happened. Other terrorist attacks came and went without much stir, (the Cole, the embassy bombings, etc.), so it would have to be a big one. None of those attacks came while the PNACs were running the show. And Clinton couldn't have acted if he wanted to anyway because of the Republican congress and blowjobgate. I don't think they anticipated the scale of 911, but its scale empowered them that much more than they would have been otherwise. Maybe this Abrahms thing will blow the whole thing open. I just heard that Delay has given up any attempt to retain his leadership. I think the next few years will be dominated by stories about Republicans being indicted and jailed. Surprise, surprise. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Let's Roll
n Behalf Of Julia Thompson And then there's the question, is it a firecracker or a gun? If you hear enough of both, you learn to tell the difference in sound. Or so I've been told by someone who lived on a really bad street in DC for a year. But could that person tell the difference after several hours of dealing with the worst terrorist incident on US soil? If they happened to have a radio with them, is it quite possible they might say that sounded like a gunshot outloud and then think later to themselves, no, more likely a firecracker. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Let's Roll
On Behalf Of Dave Land And it's not just that people described the plane hitting the tower as an explosion, it's the reports -- many of them at the time they happened -- of there goes another explosion. There are radio recordings of lots of firefighters reported secondary explosions throughout the building at various times, and footage of reporters reacting to explosions way after the both planes had hit. I don't think I was clear enough earlier. I was actually referring to these reports of secondary explosions not the initial explosion from the airplane hit. Again, there probably were lots of things happening that could be described in the chaos of the moment as explosions. But that doesn't mean they were caused by bombs preset in the building. I'm not sure that I buy the argument that the average firefighter is trained to know the difference between an explosion caused by a bomb and by other things. I'm sure they are trained to know about the normal fire-related explosions and such. But nothing about the WTC attacks was normal. It was all outside of their experiences and training. The scale of the damage and the chaos was beyond anything I'm sure most, if not all, of them had ever seen. I don't put a lot of creedence in the words someone blurted out over a radio in that situation. As I said in another post, I could imagine someone blurting out the first thing that came to mind (that sounded like a bomb) but then internalizing the next part (no, probably 'caused by blah-blah-blah). - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
- Original Message - From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:25 AM Subject: RE: Let's Roll On Behalf Of Dave Land And it's not just that people described the plane hitting the tower as an explosion, it's the reports -- many of them at the time they happened -- of there goes another explosion. There are radio recordings of lots of firefighters reported secondary explosions throughout the building at various times, and footage of reporters reacting to explosions way after the both planes had hit. I don't think I was clear enough earlier. I was actually referring to these reports of secondary explosions not the initial explosion from the airplane hit. Again, there probably were lots of things happening that could be described in the chaos of the moment as explosions. But that doesn't mean they were caused by bombs preset in the building. I'm not sure that I buy the argument that the average firefighter is trained to know the difference between an explosion caused by a bomb and by other things. I'm sure they are trained to know about the normal fire-related explosions and such. But nothing about the WTC attacks was normal. It was all outside of their experiences and training. The scale of the damage and the chaos was beyond anything I'm sure most, if not all, of them had ever seen. To add to this argument, I'll quote from one of ( the scientific American site) the technical web sites I listed: quote Others have pointed out the possibility that the aviation fuel fires burned sufficiently hot to melt and ignite the airliners' aluminum airframe structures. Aluminum, a pyrophoric metal, could have added to the conflagrations. Hot molten aluminum, suggests one well-informed correspondent, could have seeped down into the floor systems, doing significant damage. Aluminum melts into burning 'goblet puddles' that would pool around depressions, [such as] beam joints, service openings in the floor, stair wells and so forth...The goblets are white hot, burning at an estimated 1800 degrees Celsius. At this temperature, the water of hydration in the concrete is vaporized and consumed by the aluminum. This evolves hydrogen gas that burns. Aluminum burning in concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag covered by a white aluminum oxide ash, all of which serve to insulate and contain the aluminum puddle. end quote Such a scenario is consistent with multiple explosions. Indeed, since aluminum, iron, and oxygen are the prime components in thermite...and I know from trying to find cast aluminum blocks that the melting and the flash point of aluminum are close, one has the potential for lots of explosions with the hot materials at hand. Second, the amount of kinetic energy produced by each collapse was truly amazing: a trillion joules. To put it in perspective, using the specific heat of stainless steel at 25C, this is enough to heat 2000 metric tons of steel from 0C to 1000C. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of Dave Land And it's not just that people described the plane hitting the tower as an explosion, it's the reports -- many of them at the time they happened -- of there goes another explosion. There are radio recordings of lots of firefighters reported secondary explosions throughout the building at various times, and footage of reporters reacting to explosions way after the both planes had hit. I don't think I was clear enough earlier. I was actually referring to these reports of secondary explosions not the initial explosion from the airplane hit. Again, there probably were lots of things happening that could be described in the chaos of the moment as explosions. But that doesn't mean they were caused by bombs preset in the building. I'm not sure that I buy the argument that the average firefighter is trained to know the difference between an explosion caused by a bomb and by other things. I'm sure they are trained to know about the normal fire-related explosions and such. But nothing about the WTC attacks was normal. It was all outside of their experiences and training. The scale of the damage and the chaos was beyond anything I'm sure most, if not all, of them had ever seen. I don't put a lot of creedence in the words someone blurted out over a radio in that situation. As I said in another post, I could imagine someone blurting out the first thing that came to mind (that sounded like a bomb) but then internalizing the next part (no, probably 'caused by blah-blah-blah). If you ever had the opportunity to hear 250MCM cables go phase to phase, something that certainly if only similarly happened in the WTC any number of times, then you would know just how easy it is to hear explosions during disasterous occurences. How many battery powered devices would there be in a building like the WTC. Ever heard a battery explode? I have. It was 30 feet away and sounded like a shotgun going off next to my head. How many little UPS units in such an office space? How many exploded due to fire? I'm sure some of the brighter minds here can think of other mundane reasons for explosions and similar sounding events. My concern WRT the conspiracy theories is in the way 3 WTC buildings collapsed fairly squarely into thier footprints. It is quite difficult to *make* this occur (in the sense that work must be done to garuantee it), yet 3 WTC buildings did just that on their own and one was not even hit by a plane. If I have any doubts about the rational explanation it lies there. xponent Pancake Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Looking at the contention that the nature of the collapse was consistent with demolition instead of desctruction by a shock wave going downwards, we can look at: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/#northtower The composit ABC vidio shows pretty clearly that the bottom parts of the building do not start to fall until the wave of destruction reaches them. If multiple charges went off, then the collapse would take place near simultaneously. After spending time looking at this, I still cannot see where the alledged holes in the explaination provided by civil engineers is. I'd appreciate a description of why the professional explaination cannot be right. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
My concern WRT the conspiracy theories is in the way 3 WTC buildings collapsed fairly squarely into thier footprints. It is quite difficult to *make* this occur (in the sense that work must be done to garuantee it), yet 3 WTC buildings did just that on their own and one was not even hit by a plane. If I have any doubts about the rational explanation it lies there. At the Scientific American site we have this explaination: quote Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself. Robert McNamara said his failure mechanism theory focuses on the connections that hold the structure together, but he cautioned that we really need to wait for a detailed investigation, before we decide if we have to up the code ratings for these connections in signature structures end quote To make it tilt, one side of the building would have to hold for a significantly longer time than the other. If you watch the video of the south tower (I think it is the south tower), you will see some tilting at the beginning. After that, its more like a wave in a structure. In essence, by the time the wave got down 20 floors, the forces involved in stopping it were much greater than the design strength of the connections. They broke very quickly...so that even a 50% variation in breaking speed would not cause tilt. I think part of the problem in intuiting this is that our gut level experience is not with this type of collapse with this type of structure. Now, if the bottom collapsed, then we would expect tilt, but not the top. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Dan Minette wrote: Looking at the contention that the nature of the collapse was consistent with demolition instead of desctruction by a shock wave going downwards, we can look at: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/#northtower The composit ABC vidio shows pretty clearly that the bottom parts of the building do not start to fall until the wave of destruction reaches them. If multiple charges went off, then the collapse would take place near simultaneously. After spending time looking at this, I still cannot see where the alledged holes in the explaination provided by civil engineers is. I'd appreciate a description of why the professional explaination cannot be right. Dan, I don't deny it, I question it. I would have an easier time with the way it collapsed if the buildings had toppled onto their neighbors (as awful as that sounds). It is the 3 buildings collapsing straight down that boggles my imagination. As it were..building demolition experts *do* *not* explode all their charges simultaneously in any case, but rather explode the charges so that the collapse is guided downward. (And that factoid is from watching a documentary on building demolition I saw back in the 90s). As thing stand, I don't believe in the conspiracy theories, but some aspects of them remain open questions until sufficient answers appear. I just have not seen sufficient evidnce for my particular bugaboo.G xponent Splashes Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 7:26 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Dan Minette wrote: Looking at the contention that the nature of the collapse was consistent with demolition instead of desctruction by a shock wave going downwards, we can look at: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/#northtower The composit ABC vidio shows pretty clearly that the bottom parts of the building do not start to fall until the wave of destruction reaches them. If multiple charges went off, then the collapse would take place near simultaneously. After spending time looking at this, I still cannot see where the alledged holes in the explaination provided by civil engineers is. I'd appreciate a description of why the professional explaination cannot be right. Dan, I don't deny it, I question it. I would have an easier time with the way it collapsed if the buildings had toppled onto their neighbors (as awful as that sounds). It is the 3 buildings collapsing straight down that boggles my imagination. I cannot see, given the mechanism of failure, how they would topple. What would hold one side of the building up for a significant length of time? Once I started doing the physics of it in my head, it seemed obvious to megiven the structure of the building and the nature of the collapse. And I appreciate that you are not denying it, but simply stating contradictions with earlier experience. However, it did seem to me that David Land stated that the commonly accepted explanation is just as full of holes as the conspiracy theoriesand that's what I was addressing with my comment. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Dan Minette wrote: My concern WRT the conspiracy theories is in the way 3 WTC buildings collapsed fairly squarely into thier footprints. It is quite difficult to *make* this occur (in the sense that work must be done to garuantee it), yet 3 WTC buildings did just that on their own and one was not even hit by a plane. If I have any doubts about the rational explanation it lies there. At the Scientific American site we have this explaination: quote Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself. Robert McNamara said his failure mechanism theory focuses on the connections that hold the structure together, but he cautioned that we really need to wait for a detailed investigation, before we decide if we have to up the code ratings for these connections in signature structures end quote To make it tilt, one side of the building would have to hold for a significantly longer time than the other. If you watch the video of the south tower (I think it is the south tower), you will see some tilting at the beginning. After that, its more like a wave in a structure. In essence, by the time the wave got down 20 floors, the forces involved in stopping it were much greater than the design strength of the connections. They broke very quickly...so that even a 50% variation in breaking speed would not cause tilt. I think part of the problem in intuiting this is that our gut level experience is not with this type of collapse with this type of structure. Now, if the bottom collapsed, then we would expect tilt, but not the top. One of the towers was hit distinctly off center, yet it collapsed almost exactly as its twin. And what collapsed WTC8? (This is a good bit of funG) xponent Conspiracy Points And Blunts Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 7:37 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Dan Minette wrote: My concern WRT the conspiracy theories is in the way 3 WTC buildings collapsed fairly squarely into thier footprints. It is quite difficult to *make* this occur (in the sense that work must be done to garuantee it), yet 3 WTC buildings did just that on their own and one was not even hit by a plane. If I have any doubts about the rational explanation it lies there. At the Scientific American site we have this explaination: quote Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself. Robert McNamara said his failure mechanism theory focuses on the connections that hold the structure together, but he cautioned that we really need to wait for a detailed investigation, before we decide if we have to up the code ratings for these connections in signature structures end quote To make it tilt, one side of the building would have to hold for a significantly longer time than the other. If you watch the video of the south tower (I think it is the south tower), you will see some tilting at the beginning. After that, its more like a wave in a structure. In essence, by the time the wave got down 20 floors, the forces involved in stopping it were much greater than the design strength of the connections. They broke very quickly...so that even a 50% variation in breaking speed would not cause tilt. I think part of the problem in intuiting this is that our gut level experience is not with this type of collapse with this type of structure. Now, if the bottom collapsed, then we would expect tilt, but not the top. One of the towers was hit distinctly off center, yet it collapsed almost exactly as its twin. Most of the civil engineering sites I looked at indicated that the fire was hot enough to eventually weaken the remaining steel to 10%-20% of its full strength. And what collapsed WTC8? From http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5c=y we have: quote WTC 7 Collapse CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one. FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7, NIST's Sunder tells PM. On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out. NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of progressive collapse, a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or kinks, in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse. According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors, Sunder notes, it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down. There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities
Re: Let's Roll
Dan wrote: No, I made it based on his actions and statements concerning the Balkans immediately after he was elected. A summation of the administrations attitude is at http://www.worldpress.org/0901cover3.htm Bush wasn't interested in nation buildingboth his statements and his actions indicated that he thought it was a do-gooder waster of effort.before 9-11. The article seems to be based on statements made by Secretary Powell who, in retrospect, had about as much influence on the Bush White House as Dan Rather. Were there any statements by Bush or Rumsfeld or Cheney? Second, if you dig deeper into the Clarke statements as well as allegations made by Paul O'Niel, you _will_ find a greater interest in Iraq than in Al Quaeda/Bin Laden prior to 911. OK, let me accept that he was more interested in Iraq than AQ. The number of public statements he made on the dangers of appeasing North Korea were significantly greater than the number of public statements made about Iraq. Yet, I saw no indication that he was preparing the nation for an invasion of North Korea. Know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em, Dan. Private statements as reveiled by administration insiders are much more compelling than public statments. Third, immediately after 911 you not only have Bush telling Clarke to find an Iraq connection you have Rumsfeld asking aids to come up with plans to strike Iraq _despite_ being told that the terrorists were probably Al Qaeda and not Iraqi. How is this inconsistent with him _knowing_ that there must have been a connection? Why is this evidence that he planned on invading Iraq before 9-11. Why couldn't it just be the perspective that it takes the resources of a country to mount such an attackand knowing that Hussein has supported other terrorists with cash, him believing that it must have happened again. Because it follow that if the projectionn of power into the middle east and regime change in Iraq were administration priorities (as illustrated in points 1, 2 and 4), then the administration would be anxious to find an excuse to invade Iraq. Well, it was a goal of the Clinton administration to remove Kim from power. They thought that this would provide an opportunity to defuse the Korean crisis. This was after Clinton decided not to bomb the nuclear facilities. But, he had no plans to invade. I know that Bush I had the removal of Hussein as a goal of his policy. Clinton certainly rattled the saber more in 1998 than Bush did pre-9-11. So if there had been an incident and Clinton had invaded and then it turned out that the incident had absolutely nothing to do with N. Korea then Clintons proclivity to unseat Kim would have nothing to do with why he invaded??? And finally you have the build up to invasion during which intelligence was manipulated in a manner that promoted the justification for invasion. Which does not address what was planned before 9-11. No, but it is a further indicator of the administrations anxiousness to invade Iraq. There were four points that you considered suggesting that the invasion of Iraq was a priority before 9-11. I didn't consider them thus. I'd be willing to try to formalize my I also considered negative evidence. For example, Powell stated that the sanctions were working with Iraq early in 2001 and that no military action was needed. Why is it you think that Powell is a good indicator of what the administration was thinking? Whatever he said had only coincidental importance to what the ral Bush insiders were thinking. You quote Richards stating that Bush was more interested in Iraq than AQ. He also stated that Bush wasn't very interested in AQdidn't consider them to be a serious threat. If the Bush administration had Iraq as a priority, wouldn't Richards, or Wilkerson, or someone have gotten wind of that pre 9-11? I assume you mean Richard Clarke? This is from a meeting in April of 2001: Clarke relates, I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.' And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States. Clarke went on to add, There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever. And this is Paul O'Niell, the Secretary of the Treasury and a member of the security council: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic A 10 days after the inauguration - eight
Re: Let's Roll
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 3:55 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll 1) Commercial planes were not really hijacked on 9-11 2) Commercial planes did not hit the twin towers 3) Commercial planes did not hit the Pentagon. 4) AQ did not hijack the planes? 5) People high in the US government knew about the hijackings beforehand? 6) Bombs were planted in the WTC and went off after the planes hit? However, since you asked, the answer to all six questions is, quite possibly. Of course, I don't know what actually happened in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 9/11, but as I said in my original post, I am increasingly convinced that it is not according to the version presented by the administration. I realize that all of the conspiracy theories are full of holes, but that makes them no different than the government version. I'm not quite sure where to start because you have, as far as I can tell said you are pretty sure the government is lying, but you are not sure about what. This leaves me in the position, should I wish to argue against it, of trying to falsify every conceivable possibility. I think you might have recognized this when you mentioned your uncle's obsession with the Kennedy assassination. I've listened to the arguments on this for years. They theories range from ones that only require a small unseen non-governmental conspiracy (i.e. a single mob boss setting up Oswald), to ones that absolutely strain credibility (i.e. the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination being a government plant that was staged with actors to hide what really happened.) Of the two theories, the first has a much smaller hurdle to overcome than the second. I don't see any real evidence for the first, but one does not have to argue for an undetected Byzantine conspiracy for it to occur. I believe a reasonable person would require a very high burden of proof for the latter theory, and a more modest one for the former. The reason for this, I hope, is obvious. The planting of Zapruder as an ordinary citizen, but really a secret government agent, strains credibility in a way that secret mob connections do not. I hope we can agree on such a principal...because I think it is essential in analyzing most sets of data to arrive at a conclusion. If we do not, then I'd take the time to go through the types of arguments that one opens oneself up to. Speaking of which, I'd like to refer to other arenas where the big holes arguments have been used. One was an alternate thinker cosmology website that Doug asked questions about. Another is the creationist argument. In each case, there a list of holes in the standard theory are given. Many of these holes don't really exist, they result from apparent common sense but inaccurate arguments (e.g. the entropy argument of creationists.) Some holes do, but they are minor anomalies that can be expected in any complex set of data. I'd argue that these folks strain at gnats and swallow camels. Particularly with evolution, there are certainly large holes in the data set tracing evolution from it's beginnings, but that is to be expected when one needs a bit of luck to have any given specimen both preserved and found. The reason I bring these examples up is that they help illustrate the main points that I hope we can agree upon before considering the issue. The first is that we should accept the same technique to evaluate arguments supporting positions that we tend to favor as we do those positions we tend to oppose. We've discussed the bias we all have before on this list. I have found, both professionally and personally, that reliance on technique is one of the best ways to counter this tendency. Feynman's comment that science is one of the best ways we have of not fooling ourselves relates to this. Many times I have used technique to arrive at conclusions, and then said oh shit after I arrived at my conclusions. The rigorous use of technique was my guard against lying to myself. After 25 years of success using these techniques, they are fairly well ingrained in me. Now, when we turn from science to politics and economics, things are not quite as simple. Nonetheless, scholarship is still valuable in this area. I say scholarship, because the reliance on technique is a hallmark of scholarship. When I read books on how to do historical research I see a parallel to my own scientific work. It's a bit softer, since history is not a science, but good technique still have a very high correlation with reliability. The second point is that virtually every complex data set will contain anomalies that are hard to reconcile with any theory. Every large data set I have obtained includes a few head scratchers that are, in the final analysis, accepted as anomalous results. The existence of such anomalies does not mean that the theory is wrong. Only
Re: Let's Roll
I'm about to go out, so I thought I'd add one more thing to my list of rules of thumb that directly affects the WTC question. I went to a number of conspiracy web sites and found a consistent theme that the collapse was inconsistent with the explanation by the government. I thought that such a major event would be studied by civil engineers. And I was right. I was able to google a number of sites. A sample is given below. http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1024/news_2-2.html http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3742isa=Category http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ http://www.mscsoftware.com/success/details.cfm?Q=132Z=181sid=269 In addition, there is a list of abstracts that includes a number on the WTC collapse at: http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWsrchkwx.cgi?Collapse From this sample, I have determined that the professional civil engineering community believes that the collapse is consistant with damage done by airplanes. There are differences of opinion, of course, but they are mostly about the relative importance of various factors. If the collapse was inconsistent with being caused by airplanes, I would think that all these professionals would not have stated that it was consistent. They would, instead, write papers on not all the factors being yet understood because the collapse was not consistent with the specs. of the WTC and the damage done by planes. There would be a number of non-conspiricy based factors that they could consider. Since this is a high profile question, the people who did figure this out would gain significant recognitiona main goal of many accademics. This leads to another principal: when a professional community (such as biologist, physicsts, or engineers) states that data are consistant with established theories and facts and amature websites state they are not, there is a tremendous burdon of proof on the amature, since historically the professionals are right many many more times than creationists, alternate thinkers, conspiricy advocates, etc. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Dan wrote: The reason I bring these examples up is that they help illustrate the main points that I hope we can agree upon before considering the issue. The first is that we should accept the same technique to evaluate arguments supporting positions that we tend to favor as we do those positions we tend to oppose. We've discussed the bias we all have before on this list. I have found, both professionally and personally, that reliance on technique is one of the best ways to counter this tendency. Feynman's comment that science is one of the best ways we have of not fooling ourselves relates to this. Many times I have used technique to arrive at conclusions, and then said oh shit after I arrived at my conclusions. The rigorous use of technique was my guard against lying to myself. After 25 years of success using these techniques, they are fairly well ingrained in me. Then why don't you use technique when examining The Bush administration's motivation for the invasion of Iraq? I have provided several data points that suggest that Bush and/or members of his administration were inclined to invade Iraq prior to 911 and more data points that suggest that they were inclined to blame Iraq for 911 without supporting evidence. You provided one (1) data point suggesting otherwise, a campaign promise to avoid nation building. I might also add that you failed to respond to the post in which I provided these data points leading me to believe that either you have no adequate response or that you would rather not admit that you're wrong. Or perhaps, more charitably, you missed the post or I missed your reply? Here's the relevent post: http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-Mon-20051121/034177.html -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
- Original Message - From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 9:50 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Dan wrote: The reason I bring these examples up is that they help illustrate the main points that I hope we can agree upon before considering the issue. The first is that we should accept the same technique to evaluate arguments supporting positions that we tend to favor as we do those positions we tend to oppose. We've discussed the bias we all have before on this list. I have found, both professionally and personally, that reliance on technique is one of the best ways to counter this tendency. Feynman's comment that science is one of the best ways we have of not fooling ourselves relates to this. Many times I have used technique to arrive at conclusions, and then said oh shit after I arrived at my conclusions. The rigorous use of technique was my guard against lying to myself. After 25 years of success using these techniques, they are fairly well ingrained in me. Then why don't you use technique when examining The Bush administration's motivation for the invasion of Iraq? I have provided several data points that suggest that Bush and/or members of his administration were inclined to invade Iraq prior to 911 and more data points that suggest that they were inclined to blame Iraq for 911 without supporting evidence. You provided one (1) data point suggesting otherwise, a campaign promise to avoid nation building. I might also add that you failed to respond to the post in which I provided these data points leading me to believe that either you have no adequate response or that you would rather not admit that you're wrong. Or perhaps, more charitably, you missed the post or I missed your reply? I didn't reply in detail because I got distracted with family business at the time. Here it is. As far as technique, I will be happy to accept that someone's viewpoint after a life changing event, like 9-11 was for Bush, can be quite different from what it was before. I'll be happy to agree that arguing for something in 2002 doesn't mean you held that view early in 2001. I'll be happy to agree that thinking country A is a worse risk than county or group B doesn't mean one plans to invade country A. And, as the below shows, I don't think that having a goal of eliminating a government means that one is planning an invasion. Dan wrote: I did this out of order because I think this exchange fits perfectly well with my hypothesis: GWB knew Hussein was behind the attack; just as he knew that Hussein's WMD program was well advanced. I am not defending his judgment; I think that his judgment in this case was horrible. If he were pushing Clark to find evidence of links between Hussein and the attacks of AQ before 9-11, then I think that there would be an argument for a pre-set plan to find enough evidence to stage a war against Hussein. But, if it only happened after 9-11, and Bush's other rhetoric indicated a massive change in attitude, then I think that it is reasonable to accept his statement that 9-11 changed everything. For him, it certainly seemed to. First, you're basing your massive change in attitude on statements made about nation building in the heat of a political campaign and as we all know, the sincerity of campaign utterances is by definition, suspect. No, I made it based on his actions and statements concerning the Balkans immediately after he was elected. A summation of the administrations attitude is at http://www.worldpress.org/0901cover3.htm Bush wasn't interested in nation buildingboth his statements and his actions indicated that he thought it was a do-gooder waster of effort.before 9-11. Second, if you dig deeper into the Clarke statements as well as allegations made by Paul O'Niel, you _will_ find a greater interest in Iraq than in Al Quaeda/Bin Laden prior to 911. OK, let me accept that he was more interested in Iraq than AQ. The number of public statements he made on the dangers of appeasing North Korea were significantly greater than the number of public statements made about Iraq. Yet, I saw no indication that he was preparing the nation for an invasion of North Korea. Third, immediately after 911 you not only have Bush telling Clarke to find an Iraq connection you have Rumsfeld asking aids to come up with plans to strike Iraq _despite_ being told that the terrorists were probably Al Qaeda and not Iraqi. How is this inconsistent with him _knowing_ that there must have been a connection? Why is this evidence that he planned on invading Iraq before 9-11. Why couldn't it just be the perspective that it takes the resources of a country to mount such an attackand knowing that Hussein has supported other terrorists with cash, him believing that it must have happened again. Fourth, you have the PNAC
Re: Let's Roll
Doug Pensinger wrote: The one possible conspiracy that would require few people to commit and would thus be more easily contained; willful negligence. I believe the FBI were at the PA crash site quicker than any response to the Radar Operators' queries about military action against the rogue flights. The 9/11 Commission Timeline shows so many points of potential criminal negligence... -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ History bleeds for tomorrow / for us to realize and never more follow blind --Machinae Supremacy, Deus Ex Machinae, Title Track ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 2:11 AM Subject: Let's Roll I can't help but think that I'm turning into a relative in my family who has always been a JFK-assassination conspiracy freak as I become more and more interested in uncovering the truth of 9/11. Just stumbled on this this morning. It is an Unreal (the game) stabilized version of the Zapruder film. WARNING VERY GRAPHIC!!! GORY! http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/0512/zapruder_stable.mov I've never seen this footage at this level of detail. It makes me sad that an American President would be subject to this kind of violence. And before seeing this clip I was never impressed with the actual violence of the act. I suppose we have been protected from knowing. xponent Sad Memories Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
- Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Just stumbled on this this morning. It is an Unreal (the game) stabilized version of the Zapruder film. URK! Wrongo! Its a quicktime stabilized clip. I'm on some medication today and really really reading things badly. xponent MyBadMeaCulpa Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:02 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Something happened on 9/11 other than the official version, and the price has been the real security of the USA. Before I respond, I'd like to ask a question of you and Nick. Are you arguing. 1) Commercial planes were not really hijacked on 9-11 2) Commercial planes did not hit the twin towers 3) Commercial planes did not hit the Pentagon. 4) AQ did not hijack the planes? 5) People high in the US government knew about the hijackings beforehand? 6) Bombs were planted in the WTC and went off after the planes hit? I'm rather confused as to what is being argued. I'm not trying to push anyone into a corner, I'm just trying to see what the proposed scenario is. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Just stumbled on this this morning. It is an Unreal (the game) stabilized version of the Zapruder film. URK! Wrongo! Its a quicktime stabilized clip. I'm on some medication today and really really reading things badly. xponent MyBadMeaCulpa Maru rob Is that any worse than my initial inclination to say I hope you get over your medication soon? :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote I know that other 9/11 analyses have been posted to this list, but I came across a one-hour documentary that concludes that it is more likely than not that the government was actually behind the attacks ... Yes, that is worth checking. As I say below ` ... the simplest hypothesis is that a Moslem group did the job ...' The reason it is worth checking was stated by a friend of mine: The isolation of the cells that undertook the hijacking and attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon meant that the people in those groups could have been directed by someone who is not Moslem. The hijackers could have been fooled as to who their sponsors were. (The friend is a former paratrooper who tried to enter the burning Trade Center buildings because he had training in helping burn victims. He was prevented by a cop -- which saved his life.) Before Al Qaeda claimed responsibility, back on 23 September 2001, less than two weeks after the attacks, as a result of my friend's comments, I wrote to myself To find out who sponsored the attacks, one can use Lenin's method and ask `who benefits?' from these attacks. * Clearly, the fundamentalist, anti-US Moslems do. This fits with the usual theory, that Bin Laden, or someone else of that ilk, is behind the attacks. * US `patriot' groups -- `militias'. These groups are against the US military, for being on the side of the UN, against financiers, especially Jewish financiers working in the World Trade Center, and Arabs. This attack was against all of them. Against this possibility is the argument that the effort required too much money and sophistication for the US groups to handle; and it will likely lead to fewer US civil liberties. * US military or intelligence The attacks will lead to a sharp increase in funding and power for the CIA or other such groups. However, are there any organizations in the US government who have successfully infiltrated those group who could have done the job? And would it have been possible for a large enough number of people in a conspiracy inside the US government to have carried off the attack without someone telling others of the plan? I doubt it. * Israel It is widely believed that the Mossad has the capability necessary to sponsor the attack. It is thought that they have infiltrated various terrorist groups. The purpose of the attack would be to change US opinion so that the Israeli government would gain more support against Palistinians and would continue to receive support if the Israeli military were to undertake a major operation to occupy all of `Greater Israel', perhaps even driving Palistinians out of those territories. The makings of the plan could have been set in motion years ago. The argument against this possibility is that the success of the operation may be to encourage more attacks against the US, and that the US might retreat into isolation. Or if the US does not retreat, the US might reduce support for Israel and transfer its support to Arab countries helping the US; as a reward for helping the US, the Arab countries might ask the US to push Israel towards more of an accomodation with the Palistinians. * Russia Many think the bombs in Moscow that killed many people and enabled the Russian government to rekindle its attacks against Chechnya were `black' operations. This would be similar. The purpose would be to gain use help in the war against Chechnya and against Islamic insurgents in the central Asian countries. The argument against this possibility is that the US might not only overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan but start building roads and pipelines to carry oil and gas out of central Asia to ports in Pakistan. The project would provide jobs to Afghanis and Pakistanis so they are less likely to go to Taliban schools. Also, it would provide easier access for ground troops not only to Afghanistan but to the central Asian countries. Also, the US will increase its military spending and power, which diminishes that of Russia. Now, none of these items discuss the Bush Administration directly. But to succeed, the Bush Administration would have had to conspire. I continue to doubt they would have been able to carry `off the attack without someone telling others of the plan'. On 30 October 2001, I added China and Iran to the equation, and introduced a different argument for Russia: Another thought: if China, Iran, and Russia can prevent the US from
Re: Let's Roll
Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Horn, John wrote: snippage So, some firefighters said over the radio that something sounded like a bomb. So what? That's probably what it did sound like. That doesn't make it a bomb. And then there's the question, is it a firecracker or a gun? If you hear enough of both, you learn to tell the difference in sound. Or so I've been told by someone who lived on a really bad street in DC for a year. When I lived in one of many DMZs in Dallas, I learned the difference between 'happy-it's-the-weekend gunfire' vs. drug-deal-gone-bad gunfire. It was the rapidity of fire marking the latter, and sometimes higher caliber weapons. Debbi Roll The Bones Maru __ Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
On Jan 4, 2006, at 11:44 AM, Dan Minette wrote: From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] Something happened on 9/11 other than the official version, and the price has been the real security of the USA. Before I respond, I'd like to ask a question of you and Nick. Are you arguing. 1) Commercial planes were not really hijacked on 9-11 2) Commercial planes did not hit the twin towers 3) Commercial planes did not hit the Pentagon. 4) AQ did not hijack the planes? 5) People high in the US government knew about the hijackings beforehand? 6) Bombs were planted in the WTC and went off after the planes hit? To be quite accurate (or, if you prefer, pedantic), *I* am not arguing any of the above, Dylan Avery is. I am, however, open to explanations of the events of 9/11 other than the official story, which has more holes in it than swiss cheese. However, since you asked, the answer to all six questions is, quite possibly. Of course, I don't know what actually happened in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 9/11, but as I said in my original post, I am increasingly convinced that it is not according to the version presented by the administration. I realize that all of the conspiracy theories are full of holes, but that makes them no different than the government version. I look forward to your response to Mr. Avery's assertions. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
At 09:13 AM Wednesday 1/4/2006, Robert J. Chassell wrote: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote I know that other 9/11 analyses have been posted to this list, but I came across a one-hour documentary that concludes that it is more likely than not that the government was actually behind the attacks ... Yes, that is worth checking. As I say below ` ... the simplest hypothesis is that a Moslem group did the job ...' The reason it is worth checking was stated by a friend of mine: The isolation of the cells that undertook the hijacking and attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon meant that the people in those groups could have been directed by someone who is not Moslem. The hijackers could have been fooled as to who their sponsors were. And of course that means we know who the sponsors must have been without having to read any more. --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
At 02:31 PM Wednesday 1/4/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Just stumbled on this this morning. It is an Unreal (the game) stabilized version of the Zapruder film. URK! Wrongo! Its a quicktime stabilized clip. I'm on some medication today and really really reading things badly. xponent MyBadMeaCulpa Maru rob Is that any worse than my initial inclination to say I hope you get over your medication soon? :) If a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down, does a spoonful of medicine make the sugar come up? Non-Commutative Operations Maru --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
At 02:48 PM Wednesday 1/4/2006, Deborah Harrell wrote: When I lived in one of many DMZs in Dallas, I learned the difference between 'happy-it's-the-weekend gunfire' vs. drug-deal-gone-bad gunfire. It was the rapidity of fire marking the latter, and sometimes higher caliber weapons. The former, however, can still hurt you if you happen to be standing or sleeping where it comes down. Locally, several innocent people started the New Year with new holes in the roof of their houses or cars. Last year (I believe it was), one woman was standing up singing in church when a stray round from so-called celebratory gunfire punched a hole through the window of the church and then her (she did survive) . . . Gravity For Dummies Maru --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Just stumbled on this this morning. It is an Unreal (the game) stabilized version of the Zapruder film. URK! Wrongo! Its a quicktime stabilized clip. I'm on some medication today and really really reading things badly. xponent MyBadMeaCulpa Maru rob Is that any worse than my initial inclination to say I hope you get over your medication soon? :) Gak! Me too! It has been a bad last two days. First thing at work yesterday morning I had to run up 2 flights of stairs on a jobsite (work is slow at the hospital so I am helping to build TSU's new science building) and by the time I got to our lockbox I couldn't breathe. I could take a deep breath, but it felt like I wasn't getting any oxygen *in*. I felt too weak to work. There was no reason I could think of to be feeling undue anxiety so I'm thinking seriously that I was having a heart attack. After an hour and a half of not getting better I left work and went home. I tried to get a doctors appointment but couldn't get one til 4. Breathing got a little easier at home and became tolerable enough to take a nap after a couple of hours. When I finally saw the doctor he gives me a prescription for amoxicillin and hydoxyzine, an antibiotic for a lower respiratory infection and an antihistimine to also take care of a rash on my arms. I'm going to try to get back to work tomorrow but I'm still feeling crappy right now. xponent On Drugs Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
At 06:21 PM Wednesday 1/4/2006, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Just stumbled on this this morning. It is an Unreal (the game) stabilized version of the Zapruder film. URK! Wrongo! Its a quicktime stabilized clip. I'm on some medication today and really really reading things badly. xponent MyBadMeaCulpa Maru rob Is that any worse than my initial inclination to say I hope you get over your medication soon? :) Gak! Me too! It has been a bad last two days. First thing at work yesterday morning I had to run up 2 flights of stairs on a jobsite (work is slow at the hospital so I am helping to build TSU's new science building) and by the time I got to our lockbox I couldn't breathe. I could take a deep breath, but it felt like I wasn't getting any oxygen *in*. I felt too weak to work. There was no reason I could think of to be feeling undue anxiety so I'm thinking seriously that I was having a heart attack. After an hour and a half of not getting better I left work and went home. I tried to get a doctors appointment but couldn't get one til 4. Breathing got a little easier at home and became tolerable enough to take a nap after a couple of hours. When I finally saw the doctor he gives me a prescription for amoxicillin and hydoxyzine, an antibiotic for a lower respiratory infection and an antihistimine to also take care of a rash on my arms. I'm going to try to get back to work tomorrow but I'm still feeling crappy right now. Hope you feel better soon. Unfortunately, I have that problem all too often, to the point where a doctor called it chronic bronchitis. Given that that is often the diagnosis given to long-time smokers who have developed a chronic cough as a result of the damage to their lungs, and that was certainly not the cause of mine, I have to say that I got stuck with the illness without having any of the fun getting it . . . (At Thanksgiving of 1981, I had some sort of flu-like illness which a doctor diagnosed as bronchitis and prescribed antibiotics which did relieve the congestion and cough. However, the rest of the symptoms never got any better, and whenever I overdoIOW, try to do even half as much as normalthe cough and congestion all come back. So I now get to enjoy having chronic fatigue syndrome combined with chronic bronchitis.) The Crud Maru --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 02:31 PM Wednesday 1/4/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Just stumbled on this this morning. It is an Unreal (the game) stabilized version of the Zapruder film. URK! Wrongo! Its a quicktime stabilized clip. I'm on some medication today and really really reading things badly. xponent MyBadMeaCulpa Maru rob Is that any worse than my initial inclination to say I hope you get over your medication soon? :) If a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down, does a spoonful of medicine make the sugar come up? Non-Commutative Operations Maru Not in my (admittedly limited) experience. Unless it's syrup of ipecac, which should only be administered when you know someone has to be made to throw up. (We haven't had that happen. Neither have we had to administer the activated charcoal. Forcing hydrogen peroxide into a dog, on the other hand, has been done enough times that the older baster has been permanently relocated to be with the dog stuff.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 06:21 PM Wednesday 1/4/2006, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Just stumbled on this this morning. It is an Unreal (the game) stabilized version of the Zapruder film. URK! Wrongo! Its a quicktime stabilized clip. I'm on some medication today and really really reading things badly. xponent MyBadMeaCulpa Maru rob Is that any worse than my initial inclination to say I hope you get over your medication soon? :) Gak! Me too! It has been a bad last two days. First thing at work yesterday morning I had to run up 2 flights of stairs on a jobsite (work is slow at the hospital so I am helping to build TSU's new science building) and by the time I got to our lockbox I couldn't breathe. I could take a deep breath, but it felt like I wasn't getting any oxygen *in*. I felt too weak to work. There was no reason I could think of to be feeling undue anxiety so I'm thinking seriously that I was having a heart attack. After an hour and a half of not getting better I left work and went home. I tried to get a doctors appointment but couldn't get one til 4. Breathing got a little easier at home and became tolerable enough to take a nap after a couple of hours. When I finally saw the doctor he gives me a prescription for amoxicillin and hydoxyzine, an antibiotic for a lower respiratory infection and an antihistimine to also take care of a rash on my arms. I'm going to try to get back to work tomorrow but I'm still feeling crappy right now. Hope you feel better soon. Unfortunately, I have that problem all too often, to the point where a doctor called it chronic bronchitis. Given that that is often the diagnosis given to long-time smokers who have developed a chronic cough as a result of the damage to their lungs, and that was certainly not the cause of mine, I have to say that I got stuck with the illness without having any of the fun getting it . . . (At Thanksgiving of 1981, I had some sort of flu-like illness which a doctor diagnosed as bronchitis and prescribed antibiotics which did relieve the congestion and cough. However, the rest of the symptoms never got any better, and whenever I overdo—IOW, try to do even half as much as normal—the cough and congestion all come back. So I now get to enjoy having chronic fatigue syndrome combined with chronic bronchitis.) The Crud Maru Today someone brought up (on another mailing list I'm on) symptoms of silent reflux. They include hoarseness and chronic cough. One of the reasons it came up was that someone just had her congestion and other unpleasant symptoms diagnosed as being due to reflux and asthma, neither of which she thought she had. (So she's going to be treating those, and hoping she starts feeling a lot better.) Me, I just scheduled a physical for later this month, and I hope NOBODY from this household has to go to the doctor before then. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
At 09:44 PM Wednesday 1/4/2006, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 06:21 PM Wednesday 1/4/2006, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 1:23 PM Subject: Re: Let's Roll Just stumbled on this this morning. It is an Unreal (the game) stabilized version of the Zapruder film. URK! Wrongo! Its a quicktime stabilized clip. I'm on some medication today and really really reading things badly. xponent MyBadMeaCulpa Maru rob Is that any worse than my initial inclination to say I hope you get over your medication soon? :) Gak! Me too! It has been a bad last two days. First thing at work yesterday morning I had to run up 2 flights of stairs on a jobsite (work is slow at the hospital so I am helping to build TSU's new science building) and by the time I got to our lockbox I couldn't breathe. I could take a deep breath, but it felt like I wasn't getting any oxygen *in*. I felt too weak to work. There was no reason I could think of to be feeling undue anxiety so I'm thinking seriously that I was having a heart attack. After an hour and a half of not getting better I left work and went home. I tried to get a doctors appointment but couldn't get one til 4. Breathing got a little easier at home and became tolerable enough to take a nap after a couple of hours. When I finally saw the doctor he gives me a prescription for amoxicillin and hydoxyzine, an antibiotic for a lower respiratory infection and an antihistimine to also take care of a rash on my arms. I'm going to try to get back to work tomorrow but I'm still feeling crappy right now. Hope you feel better soon. Unfortunately, I have that problem all too often, to the point where a doctor called it chronic bronchitis. Given that that is often the diagnosis given to long-time smokers who have developed a chronic cough as a result of the damage to their lungs, and that was certainly not the cause of mine, I have to say that I got stuck with the illness without having any of the fun getting it . . . (At Thanksgiving of 1981, I had some sort of flu-like illness which a doctor diagnosed as bronchitis and prescribed antibiotics which did relieve the congestion and cough. However, the rest of the symptoms never got any better, and whenever I overdoIOW, try to do even half as much as normalthe cough and congestion all come back. So I now get to enjoy having chronic fatigue syndrome combined with chronic bronchitis.) The Crud Maru Today someone brought up ... so to speak ... (on another mailing list I'm on) symptoms of silent reflux. They include hoarseness and chronic cough. One of the reasons it came up was that someone just had her congestion and other unpleasant symptoms diagnosed as being due to reflux and asthma, neither of which she thought she had. (So she's going to be treating those, and hoping she starts feeling a lot better.) I'm pretty sure what I have is what the above diagnosis says. OTOH, it would be nice to have something treatable . . . --Ronn! :) Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too? -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Dave Land wrote: I can't help but think that I'm turning into a relative in my family who has always been a JFK-assassination conspiracy freak as I become more and more interested in uncovering the truth of 9/11. I love conspiracies for entertainment value alone. (My interests lie in virtual/synthetic world creation and conspiracies are ripe elements for emotional story telling.) As an apprentice fiction writer, I felt played on 9/11. I didn't have to the words to describe it then, but now I think I could list a few things. But, this is one Conspiracy I'm actually afraid of examining too deeply. Look into the abyss and, well... -- --Max Battcher-- http://www.worldmaker.net/ History bleeds for tomorrow / for us to realize and never more follow blind --Machinae Supremacy, Deus Ex Machinae, Title Track ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Let's Roll
Dave Land wrote: I can't help but think that I'm turning into a relative in my family who has always been a JFK-assassination conspiracy freak as I become more and more interested in uncovering the truth of 9/11. It depends. Have you invested heavily in tinfoil yet? :) On a more serious note: The problem with such a theory is that no one will take it seriously. Even with the most concrete proof, with the barrel of the smoking gun still hot from the discharge, one would be hard-pressed to convince people of the truth. Some people won't believe that anyone would try a lie that big, and others are far too blinded by partisanship to see it. Hell, what's the percentage of folks who still think Iraq had something to do with 9/11? More than 40%, even after years of news that there's not one shred of credible evidence, I think? So even if you had proof, you're going to be a lonely voice in the wilderness. I'm not saying you should give up. You just have to be prepared for that is all. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Let's Roll
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Land I know that other 9/11 analyses have been posted to this list, but I came across a one-hour documentary that concludes that it is more likely than not that the government was actually behind the attacks I have not had a chance to look at this video yet but I have looked a several websites that claim the same thing. They all seem to hinge on the same thing: comments made under stress at the time of the attacks. Things like firefighters saying it sounded like a bomb going off or something like that. I have two major problems with this line of reasoning. One is that eyewitness accounts especially under times of extreme stress are notoriously unreliable. Also, people are always making comparisons like the above. How many times have you heard someone say a tornado sounded like a freight train. Does that mean that tornados don't exist and it really *was* a freight train that destroyed their house...? Or someone saying that the aftermath of a hurricane looked like a war zone. Does that mean that it really wasn't a hurricane but a super-secret battle that happened during that rain storm? So, some firefighters said over the radio that something sounded like a bomb. So what? That's probably what it did sound like. That doesn't make it a bomb. I was a huge JFK conspiracy nut when I was younger. I was absolutely positive that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy and that he had nothing to do with the assassination. Now, I think he did. Could there have been another gunman? Maybe. But probably not. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Horn, John wrote: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Land I know that other 9/11 analyses have been posted to this list, but I came across a one-hour documentary that concludes that it is more likely than not that the government was actually behind the attacks I have not had a chance to look at this video yet but I have looked a several websites that claim the same thing. They all seem to hinge on the same thing: comments made under stress at the time of the attacks. Things like firefighters saying it sounded like a bomb going off or something like that. I have two major problems with this line of reasoning. One is that eyewitness accounts especially under times of extreme stress are notoriously unreliable. Also, people are always making comparisons like the above. How many times have you heard someone say a tornado sounded like a freight train. Does that mean that tornados don't exist and it really *was* a freight train that destroyed their house...? Or someone saying that the aftermath of a hurricane looked like a war zone. Does that mean that it really wasn't a hurricane but a super-secret battle that happened during that rain storm? It's not tornados that don't exist -- freight trains are just carefully harnessed tornadoes, is what it is. :) (Yes, that's silly. But that's what occurred to me when I read that.) So, some firefighters said over the radio that something sounded like a bomb. So what? That's probably what it did sound like. That doesn't make it a bomb. And then there's the question, is it a firecracker or a gun? If you hear enough of both, you learn to tell the difference in sound. Or so I've been told by someone who lived on a really bad street in DC for a year. A bomb is just a particular sort of explosion. If something explodes, there's a decent chance it'll sound like a bomb. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Dave said: But I'm not really that concerned about being that freaky relative: If a group of men with last names like Bush and Cheney and Rove in fact murdered 3000 of my fellow Americans to further their political aims, then I owe my son and his generation nothing less. Don't you think that if Bush and co had been behind it, their reaction would have been less slow, confused and downright incompetent? Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
On Jan 3, 2006, at 10:45 AM, Richard Baker wrote: Dave said: But I'm not really that concerned about being that freaky relative: If a group of men with last names like Bush and Cheney and Rove in fact murdered 3000 of my fellow Americans to further their political aims, then I owe my son and his generation nothing less. Don't you think that if Bush and co had been behind it, their reaction would have been less slow, confused and downright incompetent? This is probably the strongest argument against a conspiracy on 9/11 -- it gives the bunch that sent truckloads of ice to *Maine* in response to a hurricane in Louisiana and Mississippi way too much credit. Also, I am very leery of conspiracy theorists for some of the same reasons that John Horn cited: they give far too much creedance to statements of amateurs under stress (as well as professional firefighters and the like). Also, in this particular case, one of the web sites connected with this video goes on and on about a supposed laser targeting spot that appears on the second tower just as the plane goes in... The spot moves slowly to the right and off the building, across the smoke that emerges from the side of the building, and onto another building that is obviously much closer to the camera than the twin towers. They assume that the fact that it moves across the frame of the video and intersects with the target building and another building a mile and a half away is proof that it is a laser -- what else could move that fast, they ask. Well, some piece of floating paper or a bird or just about anything else between the Manhattan skyline and the camera. In fact, it could only have been a targeting laser if the laser just happened to be coincident with the camera. Anyway, after a good night's sleep, I've decided not to become the freaky relative, but I'm going to keep an open mind to the idea that we may have been led into a costly and pointless war for reasons that have more to do with the desire for a particular group to maintain control over this country than the desire for another group to bring it down. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
On 1/3/06, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And then there's the question, is it a firecracker or a gun? If you hear enough of both, you learn to tell the difference in sound. Or so I've been told by someone who lived on a really bad street in DC for a year. A bomb is just a particular sort of explosion. If something explodes, there's a decent chance it'll sound like a bomb. The most significant accounts of multiple explosions came from firefighters inside the WTC. Those are people who know what explosions sound like. And unless they thought they were truly significant and not just the sort of popping and snapping that accompanies any hot fire, they wouldn't have reported them on the radio, especially when all hell was breaking loose. Firefighters reporting multiple explosions inside the WTC, many floors away from the impact, seems very strange. Those reports were disturbing... as were the photos of airplane parts at the Pentagon which couldn't have come from a 757... and the side of the hole in the Pentagon. It seems impossible that this could have been pulled off as a conspiracy without some kind of real leak... but there's plenty in the report to worry about. -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
On Jan 3, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 1/3/06, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And then there's the question, is it a firecracker or a gun? If you hear enough of both, you learn to tell the difference in sound. Or so I've been told by someone who lived on a really bad street in DC for a year. A bomb is just a particular sort of explosion. If something explodes, there's a decent chance it'll sound like a bomb. The most significant accounts of multiple explosions came from firefighters inside the WTC. Those are people who know what explosions sound like. And unless they thought they were truly significant and not just the sort of popping and snapping that accompanies any hot fire, they wouldn't have reported them on the radio, especially when all hell was breaking loose. Firefighters reporting multiple explosions inside the WTC, many floors away from the impact, seems very strange. True, and the fact that huge slabs of marble were blown off the walls and virtually all of the lobby windows were blown out of the building -- I realize that an airplane entering a building will create a huge overpressure, but even the FDNY captain on scene couldn't explain the lobby damage. And the huge pools of steel, still molten weeks after the building came down. What the hell kept it so hot, hotter than any kerosene fire can possibly get? And it's not just that people described the plane hitting the tower as an explosion, it's the reports -- many of them at the time they happened -- of there goes another explosion. There are radio recordings of lots of firefighters reported secondary explosions throughout the building at various times, and footage of reporters reacting to explosions way after the both planes had hit. Something happened on 9/11 other than the official version, and the price has been the real security of the USA. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Dave Land wrote: On Jan 3, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: The most significant accounts of multiple explosions came from firefighters inside the WTC. Those are people who know what explosions sound like. And unless they thought they were truly significant and not just the sort of popping and snapping that accompanies any hot fire, they wouldn't have reported them on the radio, especially when all hell was breaking loose. Firefighters reporting multiple explosions inside the WTC, many floors away from the impact, seems very strange. True, and the fact that huge slabs of marble were blown off the walls and virtually all of the lobby windows were blown out of the building -- I realize that an airplane entering a building will create a huge overpressure, but even the FDNY captain on scene couldn't explain the lobby damage. Possible explanation: A plane traveling at a couple hundred miles per hour has a lot of kinetic force behind it. Such an impact can cause powerful vibrations down the building, blowing out windows and causing other damage, especially on the ground floor where the vibrations would then hit the foundation, having nowhere else to go. And the huge pools of steel, still molten weeks after the building came down. What the hell kept it so hot, hotter than any kerosene fire can possibly get? Possible explanation: When metal is bent, it gets hot, *very* hot. If the metal were turned molten by the collapse of the building, then was buried under tons of rubble and debris, the pressure and insulating properties of the rubble could easily keep the metal molten by simple virtue of the fact that there is no way for the heat to escape. And it's not just that people described the plane hitting the tower as an explosion, it's the reports -- many of them at the time they happened -- of there goes another explosion. There are radio recordings of lots of firefighters reported secondary explosions throughout the building at various times, and footage of reporters reacting to explosions way after the both planes had hit. Possible explanation: Serious structural damage to a building can cause secondary explosions to occur, particularly if there are natural gas lines running through the structure. Something happened on 9/11 other than the official version, and the price has been the real security of the USA. Dave As utterly despicable and hateable as Bush, Cheyney, and Rumsfeld are, there is nothing here to prove anything other than what was said in the official story occurred. I can understand why people love conspiracies, I used to be a Roswell Aliens, crop circle, JFK assassination, etc. believer. The problem with conspiracies is that, largely, they are doomed to failure. People hate keeping secrets. Especially secrets that would have such earth-shaking impact. The number of people that would have to be involved in such a conspiracy could not possibly keep it a secret for long. All the leaks in the White house on genuine scandals and the leaks about torture of prisoners in Iraq are representative of this. A secret this big simply could not be kept. Beyond all that, Bush is too stupid to think up something like this, Cheyney's health is too precarious to handle the stress of such a conspiracy, and Rumsfeld being the mastermind of such a plot strains credibility as he doesn't stand to gain enough from committing such a despicable act. There was a documentary on the Discovery Channel once that explained the mechanisms of how and why the WTC buildings colapsed because of the airplanes hitting them. From what I understood, the method chosen for building the buildings gave them a structural Achilles heel that made it so that if two or more floors were to become structurally unsound, the floors below would not be able to survive the impact of the floors above it crushing down on them, and basically each floor would fail in turn like a row of dominoes. This description matches the videos of the buildings collapsing. Now I just wish I had watched the whole thing and paid closer attention so I could share more details. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Michael wrote: As utterly despicable and hateable as Bush, Cheyney, and Rumsfeld are, there is nothing here to prove anything other than what was said in the official story occurred. I can understand why people love conspiracies, I used to be a Roswell Aliens, crop circle, JFK assassination, etc. believer. The problem with conspiracies is that, largely, they are doomed to failure. People hate keeping secrets. Especially secrets that would have such earth-shaking impact. The number of people that would have to be involved in such a conspiracy could not possibly keep it a secret for long. All the leaks in the White house on genuine scandals and the leaks about torture of prisoners in Iraq are representative of this. A secret this big simply could not be kept. Beyond all that, Bush is too stupid to think up something like this, Cheyney's health is too precarious to handle the stress of such a conspiracy, and Rumsfeld being the mastermind of such a plot strains credibility as he doesn't stand to gain enough from committing such a despicable act. The one possible conspiracy that would require few people to commit and would thus be more easily contained; willful negligence. De-emphasize the importance of vigilance against terrorism, ignore reports of terrorist activity, basically pretend to be totally incompetent and assume that the terrorists will hit eventually and give you your justification for... -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
