On 2/21/07, Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Harry Veeder wrote:
That is my point. The building was designed to withstand
a severe _horizontal_ blow, but it was not designed to withstand
a severe _downward_ blow. The inability of the structure
to withstand a vertic
Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Harry Veeder wrote:
>
>> I suspect the WTC towers were designed with a structural weakness
>> to make any future demolition easy.
>
> ABSOLUTELY NOT! That would be insane. The WTC Towers were one of the
> strongest structures made up to the 1970s. They withstood the effects
Harry Veeder wrote:
I suspect the WTC towers were designed with a structural weakness
to make any future demolition easy.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! That would be insane. The WTC Towers were one of the
strongest structures made up to the 1970s. They withstood the effects
of the crashing airplanes and f
John Berry wrote:
To be honest there is far far more evidence but what is the point, you
are simply not open to this regardless of the evidence.
One "point" is that lots of people lurking in this thread find it
fascinating, even if Jed just finds it annoying.
Jed, as always, sounds pe
Jones Beene wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> Do you mean they bought 115,000 puts on American on 9/10
Yes. The day before.
or 115,000 shares on 9/10 (which is what you wrote)?
No, there was absolutely no hedge ! It was a straight short-sell from
the reports which have appeared in prin
Jed Rothwell wrote:
> So you say, but the people at Controlled Demolition say otherwise. I have read
> books and seen documentaries from them. They make a very good case for that,
> based on straightforward classical physics. So forgive me if I give them a
> little more credibility than I give you
John Berry wrote:
>A building does not need to be guttel to be demolished.
>The evidence? The twin towers and building 7.
So you say, but the people at Controlled Demolition say otherwise. I have read
books and seen documentaries from them. They make a very good case for that,
based on straight
On 2/20/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
>Makes a prima facie case for more thorough investigation of the
>possibility that WTC7 had been pre-rigged to be brought down:
You mean: the building was gutted
A building does not need to be guttel to be demolished.
Th
Jed Rothwell wrote:
You mean: the building was gutted over several weeks prior to 9/11, all
of the heavy objects were removed, the main beams were cut, and hundreds
of pounds of explosives were put into the building, but nobody noticed.
I thought you at least had a rudimentary understanding
Jones Beene wrote:
Makes a prima facie case for more thorough investigation of the
possibility that WTC7 had been pre-rigged to be brought down:
You mean: the building was gutted over several weeks prior to 9/11,
all of the heavy objects were removed, the main beams were cut, and
hundreds of
Site worth reviewing wrt WTC7.
Makes a prima facie case for more thorough investigation of the
possibility that WTC7 had been pre-rigged to be brought down:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/introduction.html
I wrote:
CDI also does forensic investigations of accidental explosions. The
chances that anyone could fool them while destroying the Twin Towers
are probably zero to five significant places.
Note that CDI experts were on site within hours, and they were a "key
player in the expedient remova
Ok, then explain. Why did they get rid of the bomb sniffing dogs after the
mysterious powerdown?
On 2/20/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
>And I agree that it would have been absolutely *unconscionable* for
>the new owner to have allowed thousands of workers to
Jones Beene wrote:
And I agree that it would have been absolutely *unconscionable* for
the new owner to have allowed thousands of workers to continue to
work there, for the 3-4 years afterwards - in ignorance of this ! if
the buildings had already been fitted with the thermite - which is
what
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> Do you mean they bought 115,000 puts on American on 9/10
Yes. The day before.
or 115,000 shares on 9/10 (which is what you wrote)?
No, there was absolutely no hedge ! It was a straight short-sell from
the reports which have appeared in print, and they are not con
Jones Beene wrote:
Anatomy of (a minor part of) the 9/11 coverup:
Detail in point: Greed is hard to disguise.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (aka
the "9/11 Commission") investigated rumors of stock profiteering and
found that although some unusual tradin
Anatomy of (a minor part of) the 9/11 coverup:
Detail in point: Greed is hard to disguise.
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (aka
the "9/11 Commission") investigated rumors of stock profiteering and
found that although some unusual trading activity did occur i
Jed Rothwell wrote:
There is no consensus among the so-called "hundreds of the world's
best civil engineers" and many excellent engineers on or associated
with the 9/11 commission had their contrary opinions eliminated from
the final report by direct order from Philip Zelikow.
Okay, where ar
Jones Beene wrote:
There is no consensus among the so-called "hundreds of the world's
best civil engineers" and many excellent engineers on or associated
with the 9/11 commission had their contrary opinions eliminated from
the final report by direct order from Philip Zelikow.
Okay, where are
Jed Rothwell wrote:
The person in this video asserts that the Twin Towers were destroyed on
purpose, with explosives. As Ed Storms and I have pointed out
previously, hundreds of the world's best civil engineers examined the
videos and physical evidence from the Towers, such as the melted steel
20 matches
Mail list logo
