Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
From: Stephen A. Lawrence A lot of interesting stuff to ponder here, especially the scenario about how best to modernize an antiquated navy. ... >> Maybe so. Maybe so... Never the less I suspect I >> would have felt a lot more confident had Roosevelt >> been on watch when 9/11 occurred. At least he knew >> how to communicate. > > > Yeah, and he had a brain in his head, too, and had never > suffered from spending too much time with a glass in his > hand. > > And he knew how to negotiate, and he knew the value of > maintaining foreign contacts; in short he knew that > Americans aren't the only people on Earth. Maybe > there would have been no 9/11 if Roosevelt had been Pres. Possibly. Never in a million billion gazillion years could I ever conceive of Roosevelt uttering before congress at what he would hope would be noted in the history books as his finest hour: "Either you're with us or you're with the Japs." Bush, on the other hand... Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
OrionWorks wrote: Here's an old family story: Long long ago, Roosevelt (bless his heart -- the only one of the allies who gave a [EMAIL PROTECTED] about China) issued an ultimatum to Japan. An uncle of mine, who was very smart but slightly cracked and who would have fitted in perfectly on Vortex, called my father, who was also a close friend of his. He said to my dad, "Did you see the paper? Did you read what Roosevelt did?? Japan's got no choice -- they're going to hit us, within the next two weeks!" He wasn't clairvoyant, though; he told my dad that the thought Japan would hit us in the Phillipines, while they actually hit Hawaii. But his timing was dead-on: they bombed Pearl Harbor a week later. Now, the point of this story isn't that my uncle was brilliant, nor that he had inside information. He was smart, but he didn't have inside information, and I'm sure Roosevelt had folks on his staff who were just as smart as my Uncle Jack. THEREFORE . If Jack could figure it out, so could Roosevelt. In other words, Roosevelt, who was anything but dumb, must be assumed to have also known with a high degree of certainty that Japan was about to hit us. Forget the intercepted radio broadcast, the intelligence reports that weren't acted on -- just from first principles and a knowledge of their own actions in issuing the ultimatum, the White House _must_ have known the attack was coming, and must have known, to within a few days, when it would happen. But Roosevent didn't do anything to prepare, and the fleet was a flock of sitting ducks as a result ... the President knew the attack was coming, but he ignored it. (Speculating as to why he did that, is far beyond the scope of this post.) You can not make such statements and then claim that speculating as to why [Roosevelt] did what he did "...is beyond the scope of this post." Sure I can, because my knowledge of the facts, such as they are, ends at that point. The tale of my Uncle Jack _apparently_ knowing better than the President what the Japanese were going to do is pure fact. Conclusions drawn from such an anecdote are, of course, guesswork, but none the less the story is something I know. On the other hand, since I wasn't even born yet and I certainly wasn't following current events, I don't know enough about what was going on to have more than the vaguest notion as to _why_ the President might have done such a thing. Certainly, the notion that a "big disaster" was needed to get us into the war seems silly on the face of it -- if the fleet had been at sea when the Japanese attacked it would have gotten us into the war just the same. Bombing a major port is an act of war whether or not there's a fleet in the harbor. And, for that matter, if the Japanese government had simply folded up in the face of the ultimatum, it would have accomplished Roosevelt's most likely objective, which was to get Japan out of China and keep them away from the oil fields they were supposedly hoping to capture. One rather bizarre bit of speculation I've read is that Roosevelt had already decided that the Pacific fleet was obsolete, and that the Navy administration was stuck in the mud, and that faced with an inevitable war the only way to assure our ultimate victory was to sink the fleet and start over from scratch. No half-measures would do because the old guard in the Navy was married to WWI technology and would resist attempts at replacing it wholesale. But I don't know nearly enough about the technology of the time, let alone the politics, to assess this scenario, beyond saying it seems too contorted and diabolical to believe it could have been part of the plan of any reasonably sane person. I can't let this sit here. My dad served as an officer in WWII on a sub chaser in the Pacific "theatre". Fortunately for me he managed to miss most of the deadliest conflicts. He told me he occasionally heard late night radio chatter concerning Kamikaze boats that had been rigged with torpedoes attempting to ram some of their ships. Sometimes they were successful in detonating, sometimes not. While my dad is no longer with me I think he would likely say that had Roosevelt known without a doubt that there would be an eminent Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor within a certain time period he would have done everything within his power to move the fleet and personnel to safer locations - out to sea, other bases, wherever. Well, if Roosevelt didn't know, why didn't he? Other people with poorer access to current military intelligence figured it out; why didn't the White House? Actually a quick Google of "burma oil japan roosevelt" turns up a number of capsule histories of the time which make it clear that they _DID_ know that an attack was iminent, but that, for whatever reason, the possibility that Hawaii might be the target was not taken seriously enough. Perhaps it was just overconfidence in the r
RE: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Pearl Harbor = WMD = W2K = Bird Flu Stampeding the herd is sometimes the only way to move them in a direction they don't want to go. Rarely is the threat real and 95% will never know why they are going that way. All leaders are guilty of it. Roosevelt knew, that's why one battle group wasn't there... If no ships were lost, we would have not entered the pacific theater. Public apathy would have prevented action. -j -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 9:19 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC From: Stephen A. Lawrence Hi Stephen, ... > I don't buy conspiracy theories, as a rule, but after > seeing that tape, along with the later commentary by the White House > in which they "fled with no man pursuing", I really wondered. I remember the tape of Bush's reaction at the class room as well. Any kind of analysis of this sort will -always- be open to personal interoperation. It's always colored by one's own unique set of prejudices. This includes my own personal prejudices as well. My personal interpretation of Bush's reaction most closely resembled that of a deer mesmerized by approaching headlights on a lonely stretch of highway in the middle of the night. The result: One dead deer and a pissed off driver trying to remember what the collision deductible is on his car insurance. ... > Here's an old family story: Long long ago, Roosevelt > (bless his heart -- the only one of the allies who gave > a [EMAIL PROTECTED] about China) issued an ultimatum to Japan. An > uncle of mine, who was very smart but slightly cracked > and who would have fitted in perfectly on Vortex, called > my father, who was also a close friend of his. He said > to my dad, "Did you see the paper? Did you read what > Roosevelt did?? Japan's got no choice -- they're going > to hit us, within the next two weeks!" He wasn't > clairvoyant, though; he told my dad that the thought > Japan would hit us in the Phillipines, while they > actually hit Hawaii. But his timing was dead-on: they > bombed Pearl Harbor a week later. Now, the point of > this story isn't that my uncle was brilliant, nor that > he had inside information. He was smart, but he didn't > have inside information, and I'm sure Roosevelt had > folks on his staff who were just as smart as my > Uncle Jack. THEREFORE . If Jack could figure it > out, so could Roosevelt. In other words, Roosevelt, > who was anything but dumb, must be assumed to have also > known with a high degree of certainty that Japan > was about to hit us. Forget the intercepted radio > broadcast, the intelligence reports that weren't acted > on -- just from first principles and a knowledge of > their own actions in issuing the ultimatum, the White > House _must_ have known the attack was coming, and must > have known, to within a few days, when it would > happen. But Roosevent didn't do anything to prepare, > and the fleet was a flock of sitting ducks as a > result ... the President knew the attack was coming, but > he ignored it. > (Speculating as to why he did that, is far beyond the > scope of this post.) You can not make such statements and then claim that speculating as to why [Roosevelt] did what he did "...is beyond the scope of this post." I can't let this sit here. My dad served as an officer in WWII on a sub chaser in the Pacific "theatre". Fortunately for me he managed to miss most of the deadliest conflicts. He told me he occasionally heard late night radio chatter concerning Kamikaze boats that had been rigged with torpedoes attempting to ram some of their ships. Sometimes they were successful in detonating, sometimes not. While my dad is no longer with me I think he would likely say that had Roosevelt known without a doubt that there would be an eminent Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor within a certain time period he would have done everything within his power to move the fleet and personnel to safer locations - out to sea, other bases, wherever. Any implication (direct or indirect) that he deliberately let his fleet and crew languish in the harbor - basically as sitting ducks is absolutely preposterous. OTOH, I also understand Roosevelt was very much interested trying to come up with a legitimate excuse to get us in involved in the "other" war over in Europe despite an extremely reluctant congress that wanted to stay neutral. Roosevelt knew sooner or later we would have to deal with the global situation both over in Europe as well as in the Pacific. Roosevelt realized that despite congresses' reluctance to act he knew our nation couldn't just ride it out and hope we
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
From: Stephen A. Lawrence Hi Stephen, ... > I don't buy conspiracy theories, as a rule, but after > seeing that tape, along with the later commentary by the > White House in which they "fled with no man pursuing", > I really wondered. I remember the tape of Bush's reaction at the class room as well. Any kind of analysis of this sort will -always- be open to personal interoperation. It's always colored by one's own unique set of prejudices. This includes my own personal prejudices as well. My personal interpretation of Bush's reaction most closely resembled that of a deer mesmerized by approaching headlights on a lonely stretch of highway in the middle of the night. The result: One dead deer and a pissed off driver trying to remember what the collision deductible is on his car insurance. ... > Here's an old family story: Long long ago, Roosevelt > (bless his heart -- the only one of the allies who gave > a [EMAIL PROTECTED] about China) issued an ultimatum to Japan. An > uncle of mine, who was very smart but slightly cracked > and who would have fitted in perfectly on Vortex, called > my father, who was also a close friend of his. He said > to my dad, "Did you see the paper? Did you read what > Roosevelt did?? Japan's got no choice -- they're going > to hit us, within the next two weeks!" He wasn't > clairvoyant, though; he told my dad that the thought > Japan would hit us in the Phillipines, while they > actually hit Hawaii. But his timing was dead-on: they > bombed Pearl Harbor a week later. Now, the point of > this story isn't that my uncle was brilliant, nor that > he had inside information. He was smart, but he didn't > have inside information, and I'm sure Roosevelt had > folks on his staff who were just as smart as my > Uncle Jack. THEREFORE . If Jack could figure it > out, so could Roosevelt. In other words, Roosevelt, > who was anything but dumb, must be assumed to have also > known with a high degree of certainty that Japan > was about to hit us. Forget the intercepted radio > broadcast, the intelligence reports that weren't acted > on -- just from first principles and a knowledge of > their own actions in issuing the ultimatum, the White > House _must_ have known the attack was coming, and must > have known, to within a few days, when it would > happen. But Roosevent didn't do anything to prepare, > and the fleet was a flock of sitting ducks as a > result ... the President knew the attack was coming, but > he ignored it. > (Speculating as to why he did that, is far beyond the > scope of this post.) You can not make such statements and then claim that speculating as to why [Roosevelt] did what he did "...is beyond the scope of this post." I can't let this sit here. My dad served as an officer in WWII on a sub chaser in the Pacific "theatre". Fortunately for me he managed to miss most of the deadliest conflicts. He told me he occasionally heard late night radio chatter concerning Kamikaze boats that had been rigged with torpedoes attempting to ram some of their ships. Sometimes they were successful in detonating, sometimes not. While my dad is no longer with me I think he would likely say that had Roosevelt known without a doubt that there would be an eminent Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor within a certain time period he would have done everything within his power to move the fleet and personnel to safer locations - out to sea, other bases, wherever. Any implication (direct or indirect) that he deliberately let his fleet and crew languish in the harbor - basically as sitting ducks is absolutely preposterous. OTOH, I also understand Roosevelt was very much interested trying to come up with a legitimate excuse to get us in involved in the "other" war over in Europe despite an extremely reluctant congress that wanted to stay neutral. Roosevelt knew sooner or later we would have to deal with the global situation both over in Europe as well as in the Pacific. Roosevelt realized that despite congresses' reluctance to act he knew our nation couldn't just ride it out and hope we could stay neutral forever. > Maybe the comparisons with Pearl Harbor are more apt > than Bush would have us realize. Maybe so. Maybe so... Never the less I suspect I would have felt a lot more confident had Roosevelt been on watch when 9/11 occurred. At least he knew how to communicate. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Stephen, I think your main point goes something like this. One in authority (cabinet level up) does not need to necessarily actively conspire with the enemy, nor to instigate in any way an "event" (like 9/11) to benefit one's agenda enormously. Conspiracy with the enemy is insane! However, if one reasonably suspects the probability is there, based on the earlier WTC attack, and if one has intercepted messages and obtained secret information by certain methods (not "really" torture, says Rummy) and if one knows the approximate date of a planned attack, and has seen mention of likely targets, then...? With this kind of intel, one can plan ahead to maximize the net benefit to your agenda from such an attack - if it does occur, while doing nothing drastic to actually stop it. Maybe you hope it does not occur, because there will be inevitable loss of life - but you plan to make lemonade from catastrophe-lemons, if it does happen. That has been the charge against FDR going back to an earlier generation. That is the crux of the charge against the hawks in the administration - esp. Cheney/ Rumsfeld. I think (if they were complicit) that they were most likely working behind Bush's back, and that even our President did not know what they knew. Given this - and knowing that black-ops require lots of off-the-record money, which Congress isn't providing, and given that you coincidentally know that in your very office building, just floors away, there are vaults containing billions of untraceable funds ... ... hmm... sounds like motivation to me, since the only net looser will be the European insurers... you know, the ones in countries like France and Germany. As it turns out, they did not help us out in the later invasions, and that was a bit of a surprise, BUT maybe understandable now - IF one of the reasons they did not help is that they suspected tacit complicity in this 9/11 affair, which cost them about $18 of the $21 billion in insured losses. IOW in "following the buck," the Europeans lost a lot more in actual wealth than we did from 9/11. BTW it was likely no accident that the building management, whose offices were within a few floors of the CIA, secured the enormous amount of terrorism coverage from Europe, rather than from the USA. And isn't it a bit curious that none of the top level folks in WTC7 were in their offices on 9/11 ??? It is also plausible that those bulging vaults in WTC7 were completely emptied-out in early Fall of 2001, and that no one is the wiser today. That is why I earlier mentioned the incident involving the precious 1933 Double Eagle, as it was being stored in the Secret Service Vaults at 7 along with billions in gold and bearer bonds, but was inexplicably removed before the tragic event (and before its record-breaking sale in New York for $7.59 Million in 2002). Tip of the iceberg? And yes, all of this only goes to the issue of "plausibility" and it most unlikely. Plus, as a good patriot, I hope and pray that it is not true... OTOH whenever, I see that frightening visage which is Rummy, I am doing what must be a past-life double-take, looking for the SS armband. Jones
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Edmund Storms wrote: It also makes no sense for the government to overlook a terrorist plot because they would have no way of knowing the damage it would cause and which of them or their friends might be in harm's way. Did you see the tape of Bush's non-reaction when he was informed that the twin towers had been hit? It's been a long time and my recollections are hazy, but here's what I recall: Bush was in an elementary school classroom, listening to a child read a story about ... goats, I think, but I'm no longer sure. A Man in Black tiptoed in and whispered the news in his ear, and Bush showed no apparent reaction, and gave no apparent instructions to the MIB, who tiptoed out again. 20 minutes later, Bush was still in the classroom, still listening to the story about goats, and he was informed by the MIB that the second tower had been hit. He continued to listen to the story about goats, and again gave no apparent instructions to the MIB, who again left the room, IIRC. Bush remained to the end of the story, at which point he applauded the child who had been reading IIRC, said a few words about education, and a minute or so after that he finally left the room and went on to deal with the business of the twin towers. This would be less remarkable had a spokesman for the White House not asserted shortly after that Bush had reacted to the news of the first hit _immediately_ by contacting ... whoever, don't recall at this late date ... and ordering ... whatever ... and generally getting on the ball as soon as he heard the first tower had been hit, well before the second tower had been hit. The video tape, which could otherwise have been explained as Bush using the time to collect his thoughts and figure out WTF to do while simultaneously acting cool to avoid causing panic in the classroom full of children in which he found himself, takes on a different aspect when we factor in the apparent attempt at covering up his otherwise innocent-seeming behavior. And then we must wonder if his apparent lack of surprise -- which could really have been coolness, had a spokesman not taken the trouble to lie about it in order to cover it up -- may actually have been ... lack of surprise. I don't buy conspiracy theories, as a rule, but after seeing that tape, along with the later commentary by the White House in which they "fled with no man pursuing", I really wondered. Sorry, I no longer have the link to the site that had the video clip, and I've long since forgotten the exact words of the White House spokesman who seemed to want to cover it up. I think it was all on "www.whatreallyhappened" for quite a while, but I'm not sure. As far as I know the authenticity of the tape was never called into question. But this sort of thing couldn't happen, could it? It's just too far out, too ridiculous. I mean, it never happened before in our history, did it? Duh ... anybody here forgotten Pearl Harbor? You know, that other attack to which 9/11 has been compared? Here's an old family story: Long long ago, Roosevelt (bless his heart -- the only one of the allies who gave a [EMAIL PROTECTED] about China) issued an ultimatum to Japan. An uncle of mine, who was very smart but slightly cracked and who would have fitted in perfectly on Vortex, called my father, who was also a close friend of his. He said to my dad, "Did you see the paper? Did you read what Roosevelt did?? Japan's got no choice -- they're going to hit us, within the next two weeks!" He wasn't clairvoyant, though; he told my dad that the thought Japan would hit us in the Phillipines, while they actually hit Hawaii. But his timing was dead-on: they bombed Pearl Harbor a week later. Now, the point of this story isn't that my uncle was brilliant, nor that he had inside information. He was smart, but he didn't have inside information, and I'm sure Roosevelt had folks on his staff who were just as smart as my Uncle Jack. THEREFORE . If Jack could figure it out, so could Roosevelt. In other words, Roosevelt, who was anything but dumb, must be assumed to have also known with a high degree of certainty that Japan was about to hit us. Forget the intercepted radio broadcast, the intelligence reports that weren't acted on -- just from first principles and a knowledge of their own actions in issuing the ultimatum, the White House _must_ have known the attack was coming, and must have known, to within a few days, when it would happen. But Roosevent didn't do anything to prepare, and the fleet was a flock of sitting ducks as a result ... the President knew the attack was coming, but he ignored it. (Speculating as to why he did that, is far beyond the scope of this post.) Maybe the comparisons with Pearl Harbor are more apt than Bush would have us realize.
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
I'm sorry, but, your source site: http://thewebfairy.com does not constitute what my management tends to call a "reliable source". I direct you to the ASCE who, while agreeing that the study is not conclusive, consider the "long slow fire" explanation credible. You might wish to consider embrittlement of the structure after long exposure to the hydrocarbon fire. BTW, thermite accelerant would be detectable even today. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 14:55:46 -0800 Subject: Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC Hi, The fires of WTC-7 are not of "unknown origin". There was the > matter of 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in the basement > not far from the power substation large enough to run a small > city. Yes. but these tanks were below ground level and even so, if every drop had burned, the building should have survived. The FEMA official analysis is still "unknown origin." Here are the very important case-studies of 5 similar fires in high-rises, which had more fuel (also from diesel substations), burned longer, and did NOT fall. Go about 4/5 down this page: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/fire.html J. After the main course, go here for your appetizer: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/pullit.html ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Yes I have been to NewYork city and I have been up the WTC towers. It is more of a speculation than a "conclusion". Harry - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, November 21, 2005 4:03 pm Subject: Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC > How do you arrive at that conclusion? Have you ever been in NY > and seen > the area? The energy released when such a large structure falls is > too > much to contain. Such tall buildings are taken down one floor at a > time, > in reverse to the way they were built. > > Ed > > Harry Veeder wrote: > > > A planned demolition would have resulted in much less mess. > > > > Harry > > > > > > snip > >
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Edmund Storms writes: > How do you arrive at that conclusion? Have you ever been in NY and seen > the area? The energy released when such a large structure falls is too > much to contain. Such tall buildings are taken down one floor at a time, > in reverse to the way they were built. > >> A planned demolition would have resulted in much less mess. Perhaps a building as large as this in the middle of downtown cannot be subjected to explosive demolition, but many other very large structures are, nowadays. Stadiums, for example. The method produces much less mess than the WTC towers did for two reasons, mainly: 1. Toxic and dangerous materials are removed from the buildings beforehand. These include things like fluorescent light bulbs. When you pulverize a million of them it causes a lot of pollution. 2. They have sophisticated dust control. They sometimes build a temporary plastic structure around the site where the building will fall, and they spray water before and after the event to keep the dust down. There is some danger in doing this, but they pick a time when no one is around, such as early Sunday morning in a business district. They are very careful and the method usually works well, saving lots of energy, time and money. - Jed
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Hi, The fires of WTC-7 are not of "unknown origin". There was the matter of 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in the basement not far from the power substation large enough to run a small city. Yes. but these tanks were below ground level and even so, if every drop had burned, the building should have survived. The FEMA official analysis is still "unknown origin." Here are the very important case-studies of 5 similar fires in high-rises, which had more fuel (also from diesel substations), burned longer, and did NOT fall. Go about 4/5 down this page: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/fire.html J. After the main course, go here for your appetizer: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/pullit.html
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
The fires of WTC-7 are not of "unknown origin". There was the matter of 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in the basement not far from the power substation large enough to run a small city. (sitting here wondering if there's thermite in our building columns as a thunderstorm passes overhead) I think 'insane' has been quite well defined. -Original Message- From: Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:28:18 -0800 Subject: Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC This was the building which was not struck by any airliner, and was some distance away from the Twin-Towers, but yet came down supposedly due to "fires" of unknown origin (presumably jet fuel that somehow miraculously escaped burning in the T-Ts, hours before, remember? ___ Try the New Netscape Mail Today! Virtually Spam-Free | More Storage | Import Your Contact List http://mail.netscape.com
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Ed, No, this is not insane, it just stupid. ...and there is a big difference? in·san·i·ty n. pl. in·san·i·ties Third definition Extreme foolishness; folly. The degree of "extreme" foolishness in regards to Iraq may depend how one feels about the lives of our young men who were lost - compared with the very limited amount of gain we would have had, even if the war had been the resoudning success that Cheney-Rumsfeld envisioned. As sane individuals, most of us have great difficulty in discounting enough, the level of ingrained insanity in government, issuing out of the "red-scare" and "cold-war" years - when such was actively encouraged - and indeed promotions within the agency depended to a degree on who was the most extreme. The questions I ask in deciding the degree of insanity are: 1. Are the claims clearly at odds with well established reality or are actions at odds with accepted behavior? 2. Do the claims or actions have a clear benefit to the person or government making them? 3. Are the claims or actions contradictory within themselves? Answers of yes, no, yes cause me to suspect insanity. In the use of explosives to bring down the Towers, I would answer yes, no, no. Consequently, I do not think the possibility is based on an insane act by the government. However, I do not believe such an act would be possible or would have been contemplated before 911. Now is a different story. As I said before - FORGET the Twin-Towers and focus solely on building 7, remember? This was the building which was not struck by any airliner, and was some distance away from the Twin-Towers, but yet came down supposedly due to "fires" of unknown origin (presumably jet fuel that somehow miraculously escaped burning in the T-Ts, hours before, remember? This was the building in which zero lives were lost and that contained only CIA, government and financial offices, AND also contained vaults which supposedly contained several billion dollars in untraceable wealth, remember? This was the only steel-framed building in the history of architecture to fall due soley to fires, remember? This was also the building that firefighters who were on the scene claimed repeatedly that they could have saved, had they not been explicitly ordered to leave, remember? This was also the building that firefighters who were on the scene claimed that after having been explicitly ordered to leave, they heard muffled explosions, remember? Hmmm... Sometimes, perhaps... intentional memory-lapse for the purpose of making a point which is not substantiated by the precise evidence at hand, can disguise as more than the counter-balance to a too-vivid imagination... ...some might call it either obstinance or outright gullibility, no? Jones
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
How do you arrive at that conclusion? Have you ever been in NY and seen the area? The energy released when such a large structure falls is too much to contain. Such tall buildings are taken down one floor at a time, in reverse to the way they were built. Ed Harry Veeder wrote: A planned demolition would have resulted in much less mess. Harry snip
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Jones Beene wrote: Ed, Jones, my question is, at what point do suggested events become so implausible to be deemed impossible? At what point does an active imagination lose contact with reality and how can this point be identified? Like beauty, "plausibility" is in the eye of each beholder, but please... ... do not be so naive as to think that the more-implausible and the more-insane of the associated conspiracy theories which you and I have been hearing with regards to 9/11 - were not themselves planted or promoted by those whose interests involve keeping secret, one "less-implausible" event. In other words, how can we define sanity and identify insanity? Yes, we can... but it is a shifting target... somewhat like defining "pornography" ... where the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famoulsy exclaimed, "I know it when I see it" ... the so-called Potty-test. For a start, can we agree that invading a soverign country under false pretenses - is itself insane, correct? NO, absolutely NOT correct. It's dishonest, it's self-serving, it's icky, but it's absolutely NOT "insane" for any reasonable definition of the word. "Insanity" has to do with a breakdown in reasoning power and a loss of grasp on reality; it doesn't have anything to do with "honesty". (Ed Storms isn't accusing you of being dishonest and self-serving -- rather, he's accusing you of losing your grip, I think...) When Hitler invaded Poland that was arguably not an "insane" act. It could have been a major win for Germany and could have resulted in a large expansion of Hitler's power. It could also have been a major miscalculation but that doesn't make it "insane". When Hitler invaded Russia it arguably _was_ an "insane" act because no reasonable set of assumptions would lead to the conclusion that the result could be anything but a disaster for Germany and, by extension, for Hitler himself. An "insane act" could, perhaps, be defined as doing something with the expectation of achieving a result which your own knowledge combined with ordinary logic would rule out. Playing the nickle slot machines with the expectation of winning $1000 would be insane for anyone who understood probabilities and who read the commonly available information on payoff rates for small-value slots. For someone who didn't know anything about probability theory and who hadn't read the available information (published by the casinos themselves, IIRC) it would be foolish but it would probably not be correct to call it "insane". Invading Iraq may have been stupid as well as dishonest, but as far as I can see Bush's knowledge, combined with whatever reasoning power he could bring to bear on the problem, would not necessarily have led him to the conclusion that the result would be a fiasco. So I wouldn't call it "insane". Again, miscalculation != insane. Now that we have established that underlying fact, we can move on to lesser instances of risk vs. rewards in governmental activity. With this Iraq invasion as a standard for insanity, Since there's no justification for such a standard, you've put yourself in the classic position of A & ^A => B From your assumption, you should be able to prove anything you like. one can not totally rule-out certain other activities - even if they are to some degree - implausible. Without such an understanding, we can never interpret another person's claims or even the action of our government. As sane individuals, most of us have great difficulty in discounting enough, the level of ingrained insanity in government, You again mistake self-serving individuals who are dishonest and who may be stupid for lunatics. There is a large difference. Bureaucracy isn't typically a breeding ground for lunatics. As to the other sorts mentioned above, you may draw what conclusions you like. In the prisoner's dilemma, the convict who rats on his friends is self-serving and cowardly but not insane. Sane reasoning from incomplete information frequently leads people to conclusions that are not in anyone's long-term best interest. issuing out of the "red-scare" and "cold-war" years - when such was actively encouraged - and indeed promotions within the agency depended to a degree on who was the most extreme. Should we believe the people who claim the government has placed thought controlling devices in their homes? No, not unless they can produce the actual device Bah -- this one falls on pure logic. The government's first use for a thought control device would obviously include ruling out the possibility that one might think ones thoughts were being controlled. Ergo, anyone who thinks their thoughts are being controlled, is wrong. (It's the _rest_ of us who should worry.) Should we believed claims that chemicals are being rained down upon us from secret airplanes in order to achieve an unknown objective? No. Not without trace evid
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Jones Beene wrote: Ed, Jones, my question is, at what point do suggested events become so implausible to be deemed impossible? At what point does an active imagination lose contact with reality and how can this point be identified? Like beauty, "plausibility" is in the eye of each beholder, but please... ... do not be so naive as to think that the more-implausible and the more-insane of the associated conspiracy theories which you and I have been hearing with regards to 9/11 - were not themselves planted or promoted by those whose interests involve keeping secret, one "less-implausible" event. In other words, how can we define sanity and identify insanity? Yes, we can... but it is a shifting target... somewhat like defining "pornography" ... where the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famoulsy exclaimed, "I know it when I see it" ... the so-called Potty-test. For a start, can we agree that invading a soverign country under false pretenses - is itself insane, correct? No, this is not insane, it just stupid. Bush et al. had logical reasons for invading, which if true and if they were the only considerations, would have made this effort look wise. However, they suffered from ignorance, hubris, and greed. As a result, facts and expected events were ignored in their enthusiasm. This defect is not insanity. Now that we have established that underlying fact, we can move on to lesser instances of risk vs. rewards in governmental activity. With this Iraq invasion as a standard for insanity, one can not totally rule-out certain other activities - even if they are to some degree - implausible. But, the other actions have to be actually possible. The war was possible because 911 removed all common sense from Congressmen who only wanted to look good to their angry and frightened constituents. This is very much different from planting explosives in public buildings before 911. It also makes no sense for the government to overlook a terrorist plot because they would have no way of knowing the damage it would cause and which of them or their friends might be in harm's way. Without such an understanding, we can never interpret another person's claims or even the action of our government. As sane individuals, most of us have great difficulty in discounting enough, the level of ingrained insanity in government, issuing out of the "red-scare" and "cold-war" years - when such was actively encouraged - and indeed promotions within the agency depended to a degree on who was the most extreme. The questions I ask in deciding the degree of insanity are: 1. Are the claims clearly at odds with well established reality or are actions at odds with accepted behavior? 2. Do the claims or actions have a clear benefit to the person or government making them? 3. Are the claims or actions contradictory within themselves? Answers of yes, no, yes cause me to suspect insanity. In the use of explosives to bring down the Towers, I would answer yes, no, no. Consequently, I do not think the possibility is based on an insane act by the government. However, I do not believe such an act would be possible or would have been contemplated before 911. Now is a different story. Regards, Ed Should we believe the people who claim the government has placed thought controlling devices in their homes? No, not unless they can produce the actual device Should we believed claims that chemicals are being rained down upon us from secret airplanes in order to achieve an unknown objective? No. Not without trace evidence of such chemicals Should we believe that the weather is being controlled to increase the profits of the oil companies? Not for that particular end (profits), in-and-of-itself - but as to the braoder issue of influencing "weather control," as a plausible goal of high-level intervention... hmmm... now that you mention it... ...one hopes that you did not miss the latest news on Haarp ;-) Again this is something that is within the range of plausibility (for weather control) just based on the enormous amount of power being used. HAARP (the High frequency Active Auroral Research Program) will be adding 132 more transmitters to bring their total number of transmitters to 180. The installation began in 1993 with 18 transmitters, expanded to 48 in 1998 and will grow to 180 transmitters. The final expansion will bring the HAARP array to full power, with ERP increasing to about 4 billion Watts!! There is speculation that the project is an "effort to develop ways to jam the electronics of incoming missiles from Russia and/or China". 4 billion Watts oughtta be overkill for radio jamming but as for weahter control, who knows ?? Using the Potty-test, this amount of power for the stated aim is "insane" but is it insane enoguh to be related to an attmept at weather control? Doubtful, but plausible ... Where does it end? Regards, Ed
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
A planned demolition would have resulted in much less mess. Harry - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, November 21, 2005 2:49 pm Subject: Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC > Your point being that at some time in the future, the owners of > the > buildings would explode the buildings to get rid of them and > produce the > mess we saw after 9/11. And you think this is a plausible way to > recycle the land on which buildings stand in a crowded city. > > Ed > > Harry Veeder wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > I would like interview the architects of the WT. > > > > I suspect they designed the WT with its future demolition > > > > in mind, which is one of the reasons why the buildings collapsed > > > > so rapid and relatively neatly. Such buildings are no longer > designed to > > last. > > > > Since the 1960's skyscappers have become just another form of > capital.> > > Harry > >
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Ed, Jones, my question is, at what point do suggested events become so implausible to be deemed impossible? At what point does an active imagination lose contact with reality and how can this point be identified? Like beauty, "plausibility" is in the eye of each beholder, but please... ... do not be so naive as to think that the more-implausible and the more-insane of the associated conspiracy theories which you and I have been hearing with regards to 9/11 - were not themselves planted or promoted by those whose interests involve keeping secret, one "less-implausible" event. In other words, how can we define sanity and identify insanity? Yes, we can... but it is a shifting target... somewhat like defining "pornography" ... where the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famoulsy exclaimed, "I know it when I see it" ... the so-called Potty-test. For a start, can we agree that invading a soverign country under false pretenses - is itself insane, correct? Now that we have established that underlying fact, we can move on to lesser instances of risk vs. rewards in governmental activity. With this Iraq invasion as a standard for insanity, one can not totally rule-out certain other activities - even if they are to some degree - implausible. Without such an understanding, we can never interpret another person's claims or even the action of our government. As sane individuals, most of us have great difficulty in discounting enough, the level of ingrained insanity in government, issuing out of the "red-scare" and "cold-war" years - when such was actively encouraged - and indeed promotions within the agency depended to a degree on who was the most extreme. Should we believe the people who claim the government has placed thought controlling devices in their homes? No, not unless they can produce the actual device Should we believed claims that chemicals are being rained down upon us from secret airplanes in order to achieve an unknown objective? No. Not without trace evidence of such chemicals Should we believe that the weather is being controlled to increase the profits of the oil companies? Not for that particular end (profits), in-and-of-itself - but as to the braoder issue of influencing "weather control," as a plausible goal of high-level intervention... hmmm... now that you mention it... ...one hopes that you did not miss the latest news on Haarp ;-) Again this is something that is within the range of plausibility (for weather control) just based on the enormous amount of power being used. HAARP (the High frequency Active Auroral Research Program) will be adding 132 more transmitters to bring their total number of transmitters to 180. The installation began in 1993 with 18 transmitters, expanded to 48 in 1998 and will grow to 180 transmitters. The final expansion will bring the HAARP array to full power, with ERP increasing to about 4 billion Watts!! There is speculation that the project is an "effort to develop ways to jam the electronics of incoming missiles from Russia and/or China". 4 billion Watts oughtta be overkill for radio jamming but as for weahter control, who knows ?? Using the Potty-test, this amount of power for the stated aim is "insane" but is it insane enoguh to be related to an attmept at weather control? Doubtful, but plausible ... Where does it end? Regards, Ed Not with 4 billion watts, nor with contructing a new building number 7 - that much is for sure... Regards, Jones
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Your point being that at some time in the future, the owners of the buildings would explode the buildings to get rid of them and produce the mess we saw after 9/11. And you think this is a plausible way to recycle the land on which buildings stand in a crowded city. Ed Harry Veeder wrote: Hi all, I would like interview the architects of the WT. I suspect they designed the WT with its future demolition in mind, which is one of the reasons why the buildings collapsed so rapid and relatively neatly. Such buildings are no longer designed to last. Since the 1960's skyscappers have become just another form of capital. Harry - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:11 pm Subject: Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC > Jones, my question is, at what point do suggested events become so > implausible to be deemed impossible? At what point does an active > imagination lose contact with reality and how can this point be > identified? In other words, how can we define sanity and identify > insanity? Without such an understanding, we can never interpret > another > person's claims or even the action of our government. Should we > believe > the people who claim the government has placed thought controlling > devices in their homes? Should we believed claims that chemicals > are > being rained down upon us from secret airplanes in order to > achieve an > unknown objective? Should we believe that the weather is being > controlled to increase the profits of the oil companies? Where > does it end? > > Regards, > Ed > > Jones Beene wrote: > > > Ed, > > > >> 1. How would placement of explosives be kept secret? > > > > > >> 2. How could the CIA be sure that collapse of the building > would > >> destroy everything and why would they care? After all, the > site can > >> be completely guarded, being in NY city, unlike a building in > an > >> unfriendly country. > > > > > > Let me preface this specific hypothetical answer to the first of > these > > logical questions with this: > > > > Please remember that I stated that the web-site had presented a > > "plausible" case, and NOT that it was believable by me. In fact, > I would > > give it a low, but non-zero, probability of being correct. > However...> > > ...as to "how" the placement of explosives would have been kept > secret, > > that is very easy to imagine ... > > > > Two ways, really - but the easiest was in the unusual > construction > > technique...first, the Wiki entry, and others (as annotated by me): > > > > "7 World Trade Center" > > > > There are two buildings that have been named 7 World Trade > Center. One > > of which was destroyed September 11, 2001 and one that now > occupies the > > same site. Although the two buildings share a name and a > location, they > > share no resemblance in architectural style - and an unusual > amount of > > secrecy according to those in the architectural profession. > > > > And it is somewhat remarkable that the site was rebuilt so soon, > and > > under suspicious circumstances. Some of the suspicion is > external, and > > relates to the amount of of gold and precious metals which were > supposed > > to have been stored in Secret Services vaults there. Some > relates to the > > lack of public details which were available and the fact that > the site > > was heavilt guarded during the construction phase. > > > > Seven World Trade Center first began construction in 1984, > shortly after > > the Iran incident, and in March of 1987 the building opened to > become > > "nominally" the seventh structure comprising the World Trade > Center. > > Since the CIA had been involved since day-one, thermite could > have been > > poured into the hollow columns of the design. Hollow coloumns > were said > > to have been a peculiarity of this design - but the detailed > blueprints > > of the "final" design, which was altered prior to construction, > remain > > secret to this day. > > > > The building was destroyed on September 11, 2001 in a series of > > coordinated attacks but was largely untoched by falling debris. > It is > > the first steel building in the history of architecture to > "supposedly" > > fall from fire alone. Closer building to WTC 1,2 did not fall. > The > > structure had 47 floors an
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Hi all, I would like interview the architects of the WT. I suspect they designed the WT with its future demolition in mind, which is one of the reasons why the buildings collapsed so rapid and relatively neatly. Such buildings are no longer designed to last. Since the 1960's skyscappers have become just another form of capital. Harry - Original Message - From: Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:11 pm Subject: Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC > Jones, my question is, at what point do suggested events become so > implausible to be deemed impossible? At what point does an active > imagination lose contact with reality and how can this point be > identified? In other words, how can we define sanity and identify > insanity? Without such an understanding, we can never interpret > another > person's claims or even the action of our government. Should we > believe > the people who claim the government has placed thought controlling > devices in their homes? Should we believed claims that chemicals > are > being rained down upon us from secret airplanes in order to > achieve an > unknown objective? Should we believe that the weather is being > controlled to increase the profits of the oil companies? Where > does it end? > > Regards, > Ed > > Jones Beene wrote: > > > Ed, > > > >> 1. How would placement of explosives be kept secret? > > > > > >> 2. How could the CIA be sure that collapse of the building > would > >> destroy everything and why would they care? After all, the > site can > >> be completely guarded, being in NY city, unlike a building in > an > >> unfriendly country. > > > > > > Let me preface this specific hypothetical answer to the first of > these > > logical questions with this: > > > > Please remember that I stated that the web-site had presented a > > "plausible" case, and NOT that it was believable by me. In fact, > I would > > give it a low, but non-zero, probability of being correct. > However...> > > ...as to "how" the placement of explosives would have been kept > secret, > > that is very easy to imagine ... > > > > Two ways, really - but the easiest was in the unusual > construction > > technique...first, the Wiki entry, and others (as annotated by me): > > > > "7 World Trade Center" > > > > There are two buildings that have been named 7 World Trade > Center. One > > of which was destroyed September 11, 2001 and one that now > occupies the > > same site. Although the two buildings share a name and a > location, they > > share no resemblance in architectural style - and an unusual > amount of > > secrecy according to those in the architectural profession. > > > > And it is somewhat remarkable that the site was rebuilt so soon, > and > > under suspicious circumstances. Some of the suspicion is > external, and > > relates to the amount of of gold and precious metals which were > supposed > > to have been stored in Secret Services vaults there. Some > relates to the > > lack of public details which were available and the fact that > the site > > was heavilt guarded during the construction phase. > > > > Seven World Trade Center first began construction in 1984, > shortly after > > the Iran incident, and in March of 1987 the building opened to > become > > "nominally" the seventh structure comprising the World Trade > Center. > > Since the CIA had been involved since day-one, thermite could > have been > > poured into the hollow columns of the design. Hollow coloumns > were said > > to have been a peculiarity of this design - but the detailed > blueprints > > of the "final" design, which was altered prior to construction, > remain > > secret to this day. > > > > The building was destroyed on September 11, 2001 in a series of > > coordinated attacks but was largely untoched by falling debris. > It is > > the first steel building in the history of architecture to > "supposedly" > > fall from fire alone. Closer building to WTC 1,2 did not fall. > The > > structure had 47 floors and was 570 feet (174 m) in height. > However only > > 46 floors showed up as usable, and in keeping with the fact that > many > > building do no have a "13th floor" this is one place to hide a > whole > > floor - whose only purpose is in the event of emergency. > > > > The Center's management leased space to large financial > institutions, > > ins
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Jones, my question is, at what point do suggested events become so
implausible to be deemed impossible? At what point does an active
imagination lose contact with reality and how can this point be
identified? In other words, how can we define sanity and identify
insanity? Without such an understanding, we can never interpret another
person's claims or even the action of our government. Should we believe
the people who claim the government has placed thought controlling
devices in their homes? Should we believed claims that chemicals are
being rained down upon us from secret airplanes in order to achieve an
unknown objective? Should we believe that the weather is being
controlled to increase the profits of the oil companies? Where does it end?
Regards,
Ed
Jones Beene wrote:
Ed,
1. How would placement of explosives be kept secret?
2. How could the CIA be sure that collapse of the building would
destroy everything and why would they care? After all, the site can
be completely guarded, being in NY city, unlike a building in an
unfriendly country.
Let me preface this specific hypothetical answer to the first of these
logical questions with this:
Please remember that I stated that the web-site had presented a
"plausible" case, and NOT that it was believable by me. In fact, I would
give it a low, but non-zero, probability of being correct. However...
...as to "how" the placement of explosives would have been kept secret,
that is very easy to imagine ...
Two ways, really - but the easiest was in the unusual construction
technique...first, the Wiki entry, and others (as annotated by me):
"7 World Trade Center"
There are two buildings that have been named 7 World Trade Center. One
of which was destroyed September 11, 2001 and one that now occupies the
same site. Although the two buildings share a name and a location, they
share no resemblance in architectural style - and an unusual amount of
secrecy according to those in the architectural profession.
And it is somewhat remarkable that the site was rebuilt so soon, and
under suspicious circumstances. Some of the suspicion is external, and
relates to the amount of of gold and precious metals which were supposed
to have been stored in Secret Services vaults there. Some relates to the
lack of public details which were available and the fact that the site
was heavilt guarded during the construction phase.
Seven World Trade Center first began construction in 1984, shortly after
the Iran incident, and in March of 1987 the building opened to become
"nominally" the seventh structure comprising the World Trade Center.
Since the CIA had been involved since day-one, thermite could have been
poured into the hollow columns of the design. Hollow coloumns were said
to have been a peculiarity of this design - but the detailed blueprints
of the "final" design, which was altered prior to construction, remain
secret to this day.
The building was destroyed on September 11, 2001 in a series of
coordinated attacks but was largely untoched by falling debris. It is
the first steel building in the history of architecture to "supposedly"
fall from fire alone. Closer building to WTC 1,2 did not fall. The
structure had 47 floors and was 570 feet (174 m) in height. However only
46 floors showed up as usable, and in keeping with the fact that many
building do no have a "13th floor" this is one place to hide a whole
floor - whose only purpose is in the event of emergency.
The Center's management leased space to large financial institutions,
insurance companies, and government agencies. Apparently floor "13" was
sandwiched by management floors with no elevator stop there.
No small companies were permitted as tenants in this building, according
to some who have tried to look into the details - also very unusual
since apparently many accountants and lawyers were salivating to get in
there. Also most unusual was the fact that a specific "terrorist"
insurance rider was taken out after the 1993 terrorist attack. Also a
major refurb was done in hte following year, and this could have been
when the building was rigged using the abandoned 13th floor and using
CIA operative contractors.
The building housed Salomon Smith Barney, American Express Bank
International, Standard Chartered Bank, Provident Financial Management,
ITT Hartford Insurance Group, First State Management Group, Inc.,
Federal Home Loan Bank, and NAIC Securities in addition to the
governement tennants.
The government agencies housed at 7 World Trade Center were the United
States Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC"), the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management, the Internal
Revenue Service Regional Council ("IRS"), and the Central Intelligence
Agency ("CIA") under a number of guises.
The Collapse At 5:20 pm EST on September 11, 2001 Sev
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Jones Beene wrote: Ed, 1. How would placement of explosives be kept secret? 2. How could the CIA be sure that collapse of the building would destroy everything and why would they care? After all, the site can be completely guarded, being in NY city, unlike a building in an unfriendly country. Please remember that I specifically stated that the web-site had presented a "plausible" case, and not that it was believable by me. In fact, I would give it a low, but non-zero, probability of being correct. However, one should never underestimate the duplicity of government, in general, and especially a government-unto-itself, like the CIA. My main problem is with the original idea, not with you. You are doing what should be done to examine the idea. My issue now is why would such an assertion be made and believed in the first place? I suggest, for people to believe such an idea would require them to totally distrust our government at a basic level and even question its sanity. Granted that no government can be trusted at some level and our government has done some rather stupid and nasty things. Nevertheless, suggesting that something as insane as planting preactivated explosives in public buildings goes beyond any possible act of a rational government, aside from being impossible to accomplish. It is the fact that people actually believe this might have been done that I find troubling. Yet, I suspect such people would actually vote for Bush et al. again, such is the condition of the body politic these days. Regards, Ed Jones
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Ed,
1. How would placement of explosives be kept secret?
2. How could the CIA be sure that collapse of the building
would destroy everything and why would they care? After all,
the site can be completely guarded, being in NY city, unlike a
building in an unfriendly country.
Let me preface this specific hypothetical answer to the first of
these logical questions with this:
Please remember that I stated that the web-site had presented a
"plausible" case, and NOT that it was believable by me. In fact, I
would give it a low, but non-zero, probability of being correct.
However...
...as to "how" the placement of explosives would have been kept
secret, that is very easy to imagine ...
Two ways, really - but the easiest was in the unusual construction
technique...first, the Wiki entry, and others (as annotated by
me):
"7 World Trade Center"
There are two buildings that have been named 7 World Trade Center.
One of which was destroyed September 11, 2001 and one that now
occupies the same site. Although the two buildings share a name
and a location, they share no resemblance in architectural style -
and an unusual amount of secrecy according to those in the
architectural profession.
And it is somewhat remarkable that the site was rebuilt so soon,
and under suspicious circumstances. Some of the suspicion is
external, and relates to the amount of of gold and precious metals
which were supposed to have been stored in Secret Services vaults
there. Some relates to the lack of public details which were
available and the fact that the site was heavilt guarded during
the construction phase.
Seven World Trade Center first began construction in 1984, shortly
after the Iran incident, and in March of 1987 the building opened
to become "nominally" the seventh structure comprising the World
Trade Center. Since the CIA had been involved since day-one,
thermite could have been poured into the hollow columns of the
design. Hollow coloumns were said to have been a peculiarity of
this design - but the detailed blueprints of the "final" design,
which was altered prior to construction, remain secret to this
day.
The building was destroyed on September 11, 2001 in a series of
coordinated attacks but was largely untoched by falling debris. It
is the first steel building in the history of architecture to
"supposedly" fall from fire alone. Closer building to WTC 1,2 did
not fall. The structure had 47 floors and was 570 feet (174 m) in
height. However only 46 floors showed up as usable, and in keeping
with the fact that many building do no have a "13th floor" this is
one place to hide a whole floor - whose only purpose is in the
event of emergency.
The Center's management leased space to large financial
institutions, insurance companies, and government agencies.
Apparently floor "13" was sandwiched by management floors with no
elevator stop there.
No small companies were permitted as tenants in this building,
according to some who have tried to look into the details - also
very unusual since apparently many accountants and lawyers were
salivating to get in there. Also most unusual was the fact that a
specific "terrorist" insurance rider was taken out after the 1993
terrorist attack. Also a major refurb was done in hte following
year, and this could have been when the building was rigged using
the abandoned 13th floor and using CIA operative contractors.
The building housed Salomon Smith Barney, American Express Bank
International, Standard Chartered Bank, Provident Financial
Management, ITT Hartford Insurance Group, First State Management
Group, Inc., Federal Home Loan Bank, and NAIC Securities in
addition to the governement tennants.
The government agencies housed at 7 World Trade Center were the
United States Secret Service, the Department of Defense, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC"), the Mayor's Office of Emergency
Management, the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council ("IRS"),
and the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") under a number of
guises.
The Collapse At 5:20 pm EST on September 11, 2001 Seven World
Trade Center collapsed. This event, in combination with the
collapse of Towers 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center, constituted
the worst building disaster in recorded American History. However,
Building 7 was not "that" close and prior to it going down,
muffled explosions were heard by the recnetly evacuated firemen -
many of whom say that they could have saved the building had not
they been ordered out.
The Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and
Technology conducted a three year $24 million investigation into
the structural failure and collapse, including Seven World Trade
Center. It is generally seen as a "whitewash". Controversy has
since grown and speculations as to the exact cause of the building's
collapse abound in literature and Internet
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Ed, 1. How would placement of explosives be kept secret? 2. How could the CIA be sure that collapse of the building would destroy everything and why would they care? After all, the site can be completely guarded, being in NY city, unlike a building in an unfriendly country. Please remember that I specifically stated that the web-site had presented a "plausible" case, and not that it was believable by me. In fact, I would give it a low, but non-zero, probability of being correct. However, one should never underestimate the duplicity of government, in general, and especially a government-unto-itself, like the CIA. Jones
RE: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Harry Veeder posted: > The physics of 9/11 - including how fast and symmetrically > one of the World Trade Center buildings fell - prove that official > explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young > University physics professor. > In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned > explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. > Jones. For those on this list who aren't aware of it, Jones is the same guy whose CF work prompted Pons and Fleischmann to publish sooner than they really wanted. Also keep in mind that advancement at BYU often depends on one's adherence to the Mormon faith rather than academic proficiency. M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Yes Jones, no one should trust the government or especially the CIA, but has common sense gone completely out of style? Two basic issues have to be addressed: 1. How would placement of explosives be kept secret? 2. How could the CIA be sure that collapse of the building would destroy everything and why would they care? After all, the site can be completely guarded, being in NY city, unlike a building in an unfriendly country. As to #1, buildings are constructed by hundreds of ordinary workers, some of whom would have friends and relatives who would eventually work in the building. These people would not be happy with the prospect of their friends working under this condition in peace time. In addition, termite would not do the job because it would take too long for the metal beams to be melted and it would not take out the concrete parts of the structure that would protect any secret items. On the other hand, no one would work in a building that was rigged with armed explosives. It would have to be prearmed because it would take too long to place detonators at the hundreds of sites. Actually, the secrets would be in safes of various sizes that would be constructed to prevent destruction of valuable equipment in the case of fire. These structures would protect their contents as well as items near by. Of course, any combination of "theoretical" conditions can be proposed, but what is the point if these would be rejected by any street smart person as being totally impractical and unworkable. Such proposals only raise questions about the sanity of the person making the suggestion. Ask your self, how would you insure that secrets in such a building could be destroyed without bringing the entire building down? This would be a better use of time rather than speculating about something that has no reality. Do you think that CIA headquarters in Washington is also loaded with explosives? How about the Pentagon? If so, why didn't these go off when the plane hit? The whole idea eventually becomes absurd. Regards, Ed Jones Beene wrote: Whoa... Reading the report, and others on this site - there is not a real serious mention of "bombs" and the report tries to focus mainly on the third building, not the Twin towers. The "broader conspiracy" is pure crap, IMHO... but as to Building 7, there is a plausible case being made here and this limited version should be taken at least half-seriously. Forget the Towers, if there is any truth to any "plot", and there may be - it is ALL about the smaller (47 story) building which was not hit on 9/11 by the hijacked airliners. This lesser-included premise is that the building 7 was already rigged with "thermite" which is not a "bomb". True, the perverted-intent behind that situation does seems to be that the whole building would be taken down in case of "emergency" - honest tenants and all. This trade-off comes from another black eye given to us in the Mid-East, but there is some plausibility to it. And one can see why the Dept of Homeland Security wants to keep it totally hush-hush as who knows what other buildings are so rigged. Thermite, BTW is used to melt steel, and must be carefully arranged and placed far in advance... and lots of it would have been needed. What "emergency" would warrant a building to be "secretly rigged" with apporximately 50 tons of thermite - and then used daily by thousands of workers, unknown to them ? Answer: Can you spell CIA and the Iran Crisis? [According to this site, that is - and all I am saying is that they have made a plasuible case, unlike most of the other WTC conspiracy baloney which is all over the internet]. The CIA.'s "undercover" New York office was a large part of the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, which was the smaller office tower, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning and the one Steve Jones refers to mainly although he gets caught-up in too much of the broader BS about a more massive plot. He should just stick with building 7. Immediately after the attack, the C.I.A. was said to have dispatched a special team to scour the rubble in search of secret documents, but they were not very concerned... as the building was probably rigged and well designed to totally destroy everything in such an emergency - just like we should have done in IRAN years earlier, in which case hastily "destroyed" CIA documents were pieced together to the embarassment of all. The agency's secret New York station was said to behind the "false front" of a federal trade organization, which officials have requested that The NY Times not identify and they didn't. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to recruit foreign diplomats at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and do industrial espionage. The plan had been apparently laid out years ago by the ag
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Yeah, I have noticed that most conspiracy theories have focused on a scientist saying "the collapse was not possible without assistance, according to the laws of physics" or something similar. Most individuals actually related to construction are unwilling to say it could not have happened. The science types forget that real-world physics is different than lab physics, because of the number of uncontrolled variables. I have done a little qualitative research during the past week on structural failure due to fire, and would like to interject a few facts that are typically overlooked by the conspiracy theorists. 1. Temperature I don't have a figure on what the temp. could have been at the fire, but I do know that standard fire tests start at 1000 F and go up to 2400 F. Burning jet fuel is hot, but not neccesarily as hot as burning carpet and plaster. 2. Structural Integrity Concrete (like the floor slabs in the building) undergoes explosive spalling at temperatures as low as 600 F, especially when subjected to a steep temperature gradient. Concrete and steel both lose signifacant structural strength at temperatures above 400 F. Steel and Concrete have thermal expansion coefficients which differ by a factor of 1000, so under these temperatures, the concrete slab would seperate from the steel deck below which greatly reduces the strength of the composite floor. 3. Vertical Demolition The structural support for the tower was at the perimeter and center. Most of the vertical load was taken by the core around the stairwells and elevator shafts. If the fire spread down these shafts and weakened this central support structure, an implosion would have to follow. Also, with something of this size, the only way to topple the building sideways would be to start at the bottom, if you start anywhere within the top half, the floors have nowhere to go but down. 4. Explosions I have already mentioned the explosive spalling of concrete under high temperature gradients, add this to the rapid thermal expansion of steel and you have a very plausible mechanism for throwing debris to the extent witnessed. Also, any finely powdered material will burn and (in a confined space) explode, which could provide a natural explanation for the explosions. The point is that there are no experiments designed to mimic what we know about the towers' collapse, and so we are left with guesswork and theory, which can never account for every real-world variable in the event. --- Grimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 07:35 pm 20/11/2005 -0600, Richard wrote: > > > Hi Harry, > > > Don't know about the physics but the mechanical > > and structural engineering aspects of the > > collapse make for a wide range of theories > > for the cause of the (near symmetrical) > > collapse of the buildings. Add to the > > confusion caused by FEMA and the standard > > operating procedure of the government and > > you have a quagmire of conflicting views > > even among the structural engineering > > studies that resulted. > > > > Having worked in the Structural Engineering > Division of the British Building Research > Establishment for 30 years and taken part in > the collapse of an 80 high model of a tower > block of flats made from concrete panels I > thought it would be appropriate to add my > two pennyworth to this thread. > > I was lucky enough (perhaps not the best > choice of words) to see the 911 incident > as it happened. After the second impact > (live) I turned to my daughter and said, > "You are going to see both those towers > collapse in a minute." I should have been > saying a prayer for those about to die but > I was so fascinated by the huge structural > failure experiment taking place before my > eyes that any noble thoughts deserted me > completely. > > When the towers did eventually fail, > the mode of failure (straight down) was > exactly the same as I had witnessed in > the BRE model so it did not surprise me > in the least. I was also interested to > observe the huge cloud of dust thrown > up which was again the same as the BRE. > model though in the 911 case it was > mainly plaster dust, not concrete dust > as with our model. > > If you think about pictures of the vertical > walls left in bombed British and German > cities in WW2 I think you will see that > cellular structures do generally pancake > rather than topple. > > Frank Grimer > > > Merlyn Magickal Engineer and Technical Metaphysicist __ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
At 07:35 pm 20/11/2005 -0600, Richard wrote: > Hi Harry, > Don't know about the physics but the mechanical > and structural engineering aspects of the > collapse make for a wide range of theories > for the cause of the (near symmetrical) > collapse of the buildings. Add to the > confusion caused by FEMA and the standard > operating procedure of the government and > you have a quagmire of conflicting views > even among the structural engineering > studies that resulted. Having worked in the Structural Engineering Division of the British Building Research Establishment for 30 years and taken part in the collapse of an 80 high model of a tower block of flats made from concrete panels I thought it would be appropriate to add my two pennyworth to this thread. I was lucky enough (perhaps not the best choice of words) to see the 911 incident as it happened. After the second impact (live) I turned to my daughter and said, "You are going to see both those towers collapse in a minute." I should have been saying a prayer for those about to die but I was so fascinated by the huge structural failure experiment taking place before my eyes that any noble thoughts deserted me completely. When the towers did eventually fail, the mode of failure (straight down) was exactly the same as I had witnessed in the BRE model so it did not surprise me in the least. I was also interested to observe the huge cloud of dust thrown up which was again the same as the BRE. model though in the 911 case it was mainly plaster dust, not concrete dust as with our model. If you think about pictures of the vertical walls left in bombed British and German cities in WW2 I think you will see that cellular structures do generally pancake rather than topple. Frank Grimer
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Whoa... Reading the report, and others on this site - there is not a real serious mention of "bombs" and the report tries to focus mainly on the third building, not the Twin towers. The "broader conspiracy" is pure crap, IMHO... but as to Building 7, there is a plausible case being made here and this limited version should be taken at least half-seriously.Forget the Towers, if there is any truth to any "plot", and there may be - it is ALL about the smaller (47 story) building which was not hit on 9/11 by the hijacked airliners. This lesser-included premise is that the building 7 was already rigged with "thermite" which is not a "bomb". True, the perverted-intent behind that situation does seems to be that the whole building would be taken down in case of "emergency" - honest tenants and all. This trade-off comes from another black eye given to us in the Mid-East, but there is some plausibility to it. And one can see why the Dept of Homeland Security wants to keep it totally hush-hush as who knows what other buildings are so rigged. Thermite, BTW is used to melt steel, and must be carefully arranged and placed far in advance... and lots of it would have been needed. What "emergency" would warrant a building to be "secretly rigged" with apporximately 50 tons of thermite - and then used daily by thousands of workers, unknown to them ?Answer: Can you spell CIA and the Iran Crisis? [According to this site, that is - and all I am saying is that they have made a plasuible case, unlike most of the other WTC conspiracy baloney which is all over the internet].The CIA.'s "undercover" New York office was a large part of the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center, which was the smaller office tower, which was destroyed in the aftermath of the collapse of the twin towers that morning and the one Steve Jones refers to mainly although he gets caught-up in too much of the broader BS about a more massive plot. He should just stick with building 7. Immediately after the attack, the C.I.A. was said to have dispatched a special team to scour the rubble in search of secret documents, but they were not very concerned... as the building was probably rigged and well designed to totally destroy everything in such an emergency - just like we should have done in IRAN years earlier, in which case hastily "destroyed" CIA documents were pieced together to the embarassment of all.The agency's secret New York station was said to behind the "false front" of a federal trade organization, which officials have requested that The NY Times not identify and they didn't. The station was, among other things, a base of operations to recruit foreign diplomats at the United Nations, while debriefing selected American business executives and do industrial espionage. The plan had been apparently laid out years ago by the agency, and possibly by Bush senior after the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The revolutionaries took over the embassy so rapidly that the C.I.A. was not able to destroy all of its documents, and the Iranians were later able to piece together shredded reports. Since that disaster, the agency has taken more certain tactics but this is almost criminal to have let the building be used by other tenants when it could have been destroyed with the flip of a switch. What about a lightning strike? Why did not they just buy there own small building? This site claims that the Iran fiasco is why the building had been carefully rigged with thermite - just in case terrorists did take over the whole building in a real life type remake of Bruce Willis's DIE HARD (1988) which was supposedly one of the senior Bush's favorite movies ;-) I liked the first one too. BTW the movie was a rip-off of NOTHING LASTS FOREVER by Roderick Thorp and if anybody was inspired by that, it was probably old Bin hissef. Even the "Ultimate Die Hard dvd" has little mention of the original pulp novel, other than director John McTiernan admitting he never read it. Probably best but it does picture a WTC look-alike on the cover. Jones
Re: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
Hi Harry, Don't know about the physics but the mechanical and structural engineerig aspects of the collapse make for a wide range of theories for the cause of the (near symmetrical) collapse of the buildings. Add to the confusion caused by FEMA and the standard operating procedure of the government and you have a quagmire of conflicting views even among the structural engineering studies that resulted. At the end of the day we know the result was a huge hole in the ground. We know the "owners" are being compensated for the loss by insurance. WE know the salvage materials were removed and chemical and structural tests are no longer possible. We know there has been a whole series of conspiracy theories set forth. And finally, we know that 9-1-1 has been relegated to history the same as Lee Harvey Osward. Calculate the amount of jet fuel available in a 777. Calculate the maximum temperature produced by burning jet fuel. Secure the mill test report on the exact structural steel used in construction. Secure the calculations for tensile strength vs. heat failure. Calculate the amount, location and type of structural steel potentially exposed to the fire. Estimate the potential for the structural steel to fail symmetrically given that the fuel was NOT evenly distributed across the specific floor of the building. Few actual facts are known. One fact is that occupants above the specific floors were able to exit using the elevators and stairwells for a period of time which presupposes that the fire was restricted to a limited section of the floor. Presume that a failure caused by the structural steel melting would result in a " topple over" rather than a " telescoping" symmetrical collapse. The odds of two towers collapsing in like manner are so astronomically high as to test one's common sense. My personal opinion.. I will never know for sure. That is what makes 911 the grandmother of all conspiracy theories. I know something happened that has caused me to better understand Ben Franklin's reasoning expressed in " poor Richard's almanac". Richard - Original Message - From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 6:08 PM Subject: BYU. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC > > Nov. 10, 2005 > Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC > > By Elaine Jarvik > Deseret Morning News, Utah > > The physics of 9/11 - including how fast and symmetrically > one of the World Trade Center buildings fell - prove that official > explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young > University physics professor. > In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned > explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. > Jones. In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer- > reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of > previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site > http://www.wtc7.net/, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article > can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html. > > Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News > "It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all > three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says. > > > Jones, wh! o conduct
