Paul,
> D. > I'm not being a naysayer, the conspiracy theory may have legs, but all > this creates many more questions for me...Reasonable doubt is exactly > what they would want to create > > All this is circumstantial and we need hard evidence. Witnesses. Got the witnesses, lots of them. > Receipts. Black boxes. Presidential briefings. VICE Presidential > briefings. Lewis Libby really, really drunk. This was a black operation, likely the CIA. So loose evidence like receipts, video tapes, and photos will not be found. If an agent, whether fed. or not, involved would get a case of conscience and came forward, it'd help a lot. But that's unlikely since the agent's life, his family, etc., would be in dire jeopardy. > > For the WTC Towers and #7 to be wired for explosives would be a HUGE > project requiring a LOT of time and workers in those buildings for > weeks. Where are those workers? If you watched Loose Change carefully, you'd know the answers. > Where is the company that carried it > out? There are only a few skyscraper demo companies. No one saw > them? From whom did they order the wire? Who drove the truck? Loose Change covers this fairly well. Marvin Bush was involved. > > I saw a show on the Discovery Channel about why the towers fell and > they had a lot of footage of engineers studying the steel in the > special yard it was taken to in New Jersey. There was a HUGE > operation 24/7 sifting through the rubble finding personal effects and > bone/tissue fragments. The engineers and architects investigating why > they fell had cut out huge pieces of steel and had them in their > offices. The conclusion of the TV show was that the insulation > covering the steel was blown off by the impact and explosion of the > airplanes, and caused the buckling of the steel. The gov has lots of scientists in its grasp. (So does Big Pharma.) > > I can't find a summary of the TV show, but here is the featured MIT > guy with good explanation: > http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html > > And a transcript of his NOVA interview: > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html > > No, mention of WTC7...FEMA surely bumbled the investigation and it did > fall precisely. My guess is that the 'earthquake' following the WTC > towers collapse weakened the building and the fire fueled by diesel > caused buckling in the middle of the building, but there is not enough > reliable evidence to make a determination. An earthquake causes only Bldg 7 to fall, and to fall in that very orderly fashion. So convenient. The 9/11 Commission could have used that idea. Instead they just ignored Bldg 7. BTW, where did the diesel fuel come from? > > I can't remember the exact quote, but there is no need to attribute to > evil what can adequately be explained by stupidity. I think the quote is not a good fit at all. There was a huge overabundance of stupidity on 9/11? Nope, it was tradgedy that happened with the assistance of the gov, military top brass, NSA, CIA, and FBI. > > One day we will know the truth...Hopefully one day it will all add up. How much more do we need? The 9/11 Commission was a farce to whitewash the whole affair. The victim's families had to lobby the gov for over a year before it relunctantly "investigated". If 9/11 was a real act of terrorism, don't you think that BushCo would have jumped right on it and not had to be dragged, feet kicking, to find out what really happened? What we need now is a truly independent investigation by real scientists, unbiased people with impeccable credentials, to do a real study of 9/11. I doubt that the Repugs in Congress would allow it. They are a big part of the problem in the first place. They are used to the high living, fat cat, way of life. IMO, until we get publicly financed elections here in the U$A, we will continue to get nimwits who are eager to do corporate bidding. To run for office now costs tens of millions of dollars and Big Biz has the deep pockets, & eagerness, to back the candidates of their choice. So we desperately need election reform here, something that Big Biz will fight, since they relish control. I think bottom line is that we have a deadly binary pairing: greed and greed fulfillment. Big Biz's is the willing agent to satiate that greed. Greed makes grown men, highly principled, to slowly slide down that slope into the money pot below. A revolution is what we need here. Peaceful, of course. I guess we need to ask: what would Martin Luther King Jr or Ghandi do? Peace with justice, D. Mindock > > On 4/10/06, D. Mindock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Check out: >> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/StevenJones.html >> Basically the planes were not enough to do the collapse alone. They >> needed help. WRT having to have the planes hit at the exact level >> where there would be charges, not necessary. The upper few stories >> wouldn't need any but maybe they were there, just in case. Just put the >> charges >> at all the floors below. Demolition >> wiring is sophisticated enough to initiate the charges at the level where >> each plane hit to make it look like the plane's impact/fire started the >> pancaking. >> WRT to the steel beams being quickly hauled off for scrap, normally there >> is >> an investigation by the fire marshall. He would've wanted to see those >> beams. >> A lot can be learned. At a minimum, how the beams failed. Were they >> twisted >> or warped. Any signs of melting. Etc. Hauling the beams off so that no >> post mortem of the building could be accomplished is, in effect, >> destroying >> evidence. Also what caused the concrete to turn into powder? There was >> huge amounts of concrete dust. Concrete doesn't normally powderize. >> Peace, D. Mindock >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> Another unanswered question: why were the massive steel beams quickly >> >> gathered up and >> >> ship off for scrap? Is it because the beams might've shown that they >> >> were >> >> torn apart by >> > >> > If you have been down to ground Zero you will notice there is no room >> > to >> > store the debris from a fraction of one tower let alone keep all the >> > steel >> > for "investigation". Does the steel get stored at whose cost while they >> > are >> > trying to locate people? I personally would not even look at the steel >> > other than a hindrance to rescue work and get it out of there as fast >> > as I >> > could to ease the rescue congestion work. >> > >> >> massive explosive charges? BTW, it's believed that the charges were >> >> set >> > off >> >> just as the floor >> >> above was just about to hit the floor below. Then this sequence was >> > repeated >> >> all the way down >> >> to the last floor. Doing this would create the nice domino effect and >> >> make >> >> it appear that each >> >> floor was being crushed by the weight of the floors above. It would >> >> make >> >> a >> >> free fall effect and >> >> not cause the building to go beyond its footprint. Remember how >> >> quickly >> > the >> >> towers >> >> collapsed? In 15 seconds the entire tower was down after the initial >> >> charges were set off. >> > >> > So the aircraft was not a massive explosive device?? Had no effect on >> > the >> > structure at all?? did not change any of the steel characteristics?? It >> > was >> > all done with carefully placed explosives. I seem to remember the top >> > floors >> > staying intact for several seconds and the lower floors where impact >> > occurred >> > collapsing first? This if charges were laid would mean that the plane >> > would >> > need to be upon the exact floor of the explosives not one floor above >> > or >> > below other wise the whole charge progression would be out of time >> > sequence??? >> > >> >> They fell down at free fall velocity, or close to it. >> >> I believe there were puffs of smoke that appeared just as the collapse >> >> began. >> > >> > Powder coatings and plaster would more than account for the puffs of >> > smoke/dust as each section went. >> > >> >> And yep, Building 7, never hit, did go down in the free fall way, >> >> right >> > into >> >> its >> >> footprint. If you have ever seen demolition of tall buildings, this is >> >> how >> >> the pros >> >> do it. Those charges were pre-set by people who were not amateurs. The >> >> sequential timing >> >> of the charges was perfect. All three buildings fell exactly in the >> >> same >> >> way. >> > >> > Have you looked at sites where other buildings have fallen through bad >> > design? There are hundreds, some swaying before they collapsed and some >> > falling in on themselves to fill their own foot print. ( They, >> > collapsing >> > buildings, actually fill quite a bit more than their footprint as did >> > the >> > towers). >> > >> > On the other hand, some place some where there is the emanation of a >> > bad >> > smell about the whole affair. Too many things have been covered up, not >> > all >> > was done that could, and why was the 5 sided being strengthened? Why >> > hit >> > in >> > the vulnerable places, insider trading perhaps??? >> > >> > Who would come forth as an architect and say "Well I calculated wrongly >> > and >> > thus the towers could not put up with the impact of - - - - - - - - and >> > due >> > to this minor error on my part so many lives are lost"???? I think as >> > is >> > the >> > norm with human preservation from Sloan to the ground cover up what you >> > can, >> > deny the rest or blame some one else. >> > >> > Keep in mind the bungles architects have made and then ask if the >> > oxygen >> > tanks were factored in and all the rest? Was a B-52 in-air fueller used >> > to >> > determine the impact, no. So why now use the scenario of a smaller >> > plane >> > as >> > the basis for impact?? Why was not the biggest plane used, why was not >> > a >> > nuclear blast used at a distance for theoretical purposes? >> > >> > The more I study logic, and theory the more broader it gets and the >> > more >> > it >> > becomes intangible, a lot of loose ends out there. >> > >> >> Peace, D. Mindock >> >> >> >> >> >> > And the towers were designed for impact by large aircraft. >> >> > I read an interview with the architect - he said the buildings were >> >> > designed to withstand a hot from the planes of the time the towers >> >> > were >> >> > built; these planes were smaller and carried >> >> > less fuel. In typical list fashion, I don't rememebr the source, >> >> > but I >> >> > think it was The New Yorker. >> >> > >> >> > Mike McGinness wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> "D. Mindock" wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Mike,You are overlooking that Building 7, not hit by any plane, >> >> >>> collapsed in the same controlled manner as the towers. >> >> >> >> >> >> OK, I will have to read up on building 7. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Also the momentum energy of the planes would've been spread over a >> >> >>> couple hundred feet. The stoppage wasnot instantaneous. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> I would somewhat disagree on this point as the nose of the plane >> >> >> would >> >> >> have hit first and focused the most intense "Impulse" force in the >> >> >> first second of impact. I agree that not all the energy was >> >> >> released >> >> >> in the first second, perhaps spread out over 4 to 5 seconds and >> >> >> spread >> >> >> out further as the wings hit, but still I would expect at least 50% >> >> >> of >> >> >> the energy to have converted to heat in a focused area between the >> >> >> nose of the plane and the part of the building that the nose hit in >> >> >> the first 1 to 2 seconds. That would be quite significant. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> And the towers were designed for impact by large aircraft. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> OK, I will take your word for it. But have those designs ever been >> >> >> real world tested? >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Any onboard oxygen, if released, would have been used up in a >> >> >>> second. >> >> >>> Large steel columns have considerable thermal capacity and conduct >> >> >>> heat effectively, spreading it out. No building with a steel >> >> >>> frame >> >> >>> has ever collapsed, before or since 9/11, from fires, some of >> >> >>> which >> >> >>> were more intense and lasted much longer than the ones in the >> >> >>> towers, >> >> >>> which were relatively short lived and not hot enough to melt >> >> >>> steel. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> OK, but intense heat in that one second would not have had time to >> >> >> flow and dissipate through the steel. Also, steel does not have a >> >> >> large heat capacity like water, it does however have a high thermal >> >> >> conductivity rate, but a rapid instantaneous localized burst of >> >> >> intense heat from the aircraft impact plus the explosion would >> >> >> rapidly >> >> >> heat the local, exposed column(s) causing rapid expansion of that >> >> >> part >> >> >> of the column(s) resulting in changes in the steel's properties >> >> >> (strength) and causing structural damage due to the sheer forces >> >> >> involved. Imagine four corner columns heated unequally (one >> >> >> severely, >> >> >> two only slightly, and the fourth on the far corner not all) with >> >> >> one >> >> >> expanding rapidly in a few seconds while the others did not. >> >> >> Picture >> >> >> the instantaneous sheer forces involved. A regular building fire >> >> >> would >> >> >> be slower, less intense and would be thermally spread out as you >> > suggest. >> >> >> >> >> >> In my opinion (which may be wrong) melting steel is not required to >> >> >> cause the collapse. Sheer force damage to one corner column should >> >> >> have been enough to create the needed instabilities to lead to the >> >> >> collapse. Also, to my knowledge this is the first time a large >> >> >> commercial airliner of this size has flown into a building like >> >> >> this >> >> >> at full speed? Therefore we have no real experience with this type >> >> >> of >> >> >> building damage and fire? Right? >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> There are a plethora of unanswered questions, if we wish assume >> >> >>> the >> >> >>> official government line.See: >> >> >>> http://www.911truth.org/index.php?topic=archive_by_topic Lots of >> >> >>> more >> >> >>> info to mull over. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >> Thanks for the feedback, I will look them over. I also still wonder >> >> >> how, if there were explosives in the building, how they avoided >> >> >> being >> >> >> triggered by the impact, explosion and fire from the plane's >> >> >> impact? >> >> >> And if they did use explosives, and if the explosives did survive >> >> >> the >> >> >> fire, impact and explosion why did they wait so long to set them >> >> >> off? >> >> >> >> >> >> Mike McGinness >> >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Peace, D. Mindock >> >> >>> >> >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> >>> *From:*Mike McGinness <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >>> *To:* Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >> >> >>> <mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org> >> >> >>> *Sent:* Saturday, April 08, 2006 1:56 AM >> >> >>> *Subject:* Re: [Biofuel] BYU professor's group accuses U.S. >> >> >>> officials oflyingabout 9/11 >> >> >>> This is an open question with some new thoughts regarding >> >> >>> this >> >> >>> topic. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I was flying today and just before take off the stewardess was >> >> >>> going through the emergency details and when she got to the >> >> >>> breathing oxygen part I though of this recent discussion. It >> >> >>> dawned on me that there is some oxygen onboard these planes >> >> >>> for >> >> >>> emergency breathing use in case the plane is depressurized. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> So now, the question is how much oxygen do they keep on board, >> >> >>> and how much, if any effect would it have had on the >> >> >>> temperature >> >> >>> of the fire once released? Does anyone know? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Also, I got to wondering if anyone ever calculated the >> >> >>> momentum >> >> >>> (mass of the plane times the velocity) of the plane and the >> >> >>> instantaneous force of impact as the momentum of the plane >> >> >>> went >> >> >>> to zero and how much heat that released on impact as the >> >> >>> momentum >> >> >>> was converted to pure heat energy (it must have been >> >> >>> huge!!!!), >> >> >>> not to mention the mechanical structural damage effects of >> >> >>> that >> >> >>> energy transfer from the impact made on the building. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Although I am not a civil engineer, I know that these >> >> >>> buildings >> >> >>> are generally designed to handle a wind load of say 125 mph of >> >> >>> wind, or air before something starts to give (like the windows >> >> >>> at >> >> >>> least). However, they are not designed, or even modeled for >> >> >>> impacts by XXX tons of an airliner moving at several hundred >> >> >>> miles per hour with all the force of impact being concentrated >> >> >>> on >> >> >>> one small area, or corner of one to two floors of the >> >> >>> building. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I agree with Doug's comments below about a bounce effect (and >> >> >>> any >> >> >>> oscillation it caused) plus the changes in the properties of >> >> >>> the >> >> >>> metals and alloys when exposed to the heat. They must have >> >> >>> been >> >> >>> major factors in the collapse. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Lastly, if there were charges then why didn't the fire set >> >> >>> them >> >> >>> off right away and collapse the buildings immediately? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Mike McGinness >> >> >>> >> >> >>> lres1 wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> Just a note, not from an expert. Steel cutting torches >> >> >>>> operate >> >> >>>> at a temperature that burns the steel and turns the waste >> >> >>>> into >> >> >>>> slag. A lot of small brass and alloy foundries that use small >> >> >>>> furnaces use Diesel or Kerosene as the source of heat. The >> >> >>>> amount of heat to destroy the steel and alloy in the towers >> >> >>>> was >> >> >>>> only limited by the amount of oxygen available. At the height >> >> >>>> of >> >> >>>> the towers the natural movement of wind would have been like >> >> >>>> a >> >> >>>> blow torch on all the metals given enough fuel to start with. >> >> >>>> Several tons of Kerosene + wind + alloys + other combustibles >> >> >>>> would make the placing of explosives only a marginally >> >> >>>> required >> >> >>>> secondary insurance that the towers would fall. There was >> >> >>>> enough >> >> >>>> in the planes and the buildings construction >> >> >>>> materials/furnishings and the fuel tanks to achieve more than >> >> >>>> what a giant cutting torch would achieve. Think of a Plumbers >> >> >>>> kerosene blow lamp, now multiply it by the amount of wind and >> >> >>>> fuel available plus the burning materials mentioned above. >> >> >>>> Take >> >> >>>> a look at a vehicle that has burnt. you will notice that the >> >> >>>> suspension has collapsed due to the annealing of the springs >> >> >>>> or >> >> >>>> torsion bars etc. It does not take a real great amount of >> >> >>>> heat >> >> >>>> to change the characteristics of metals and alloys. Take away >> >> >>>> the heating from combustibles from the plane and building. >> >> >>>> Just >> >> >>>> the fuel and the heat from the fuel. How much stress in >> >> >>>> expansion over a few floors in a building of such height can >> >> >>>> it >> >> >>>> take? That is a building of such height expands slowly during >> >> >>>> the day and heat, shrinks during the cool. Given the height >> >> >>>> of >> >> >>>> the building this over a 24 hr period would be a significant >> >> >>>> change in height. If a small amount of boiling water is put >> >> >>>> into >> >> >>>> a glass the expansion is not uniform the glass will break. >> >> >>>> Uniform expansion in structures is an important part in >> >> >>>> considering conductivity of heat and orientation. To have had >> >> >>>> four or five floors expand beyond their limit and >> >> >>>> incongruously >> >> >>>> from the rest of the structure would again render the >> >> >>>> structure >> >> >>>> unsafe. This without burning anything just expanding out four >> >> >>>> or >> >> >>>> five floors rapidly and then contracting them all but as >> >> >>>> fast. >> >> >>>> The "bounce" effect in the topmost floors must have been >> >> >>>> quite >> >> >>>> horrific as they would have risen several inches and then >> >> >>>> dropped the same in a very short time frame. This "bounce" >> >> >>>> alone >> >> >>>> would nearly be enough to collapse a structure of such size >> >> >>>> in >> >> >>>> upon itself with no burning of combustibles from the >> >> >>>> construction or furnishings or even the alloys in the plane. >> >> >>>> Compare it to using the topmost floors as an enormous hammer >> >> >>>> that hammered the lower floors due the effect of the >> >> >>>> "bounce". >> >> >>>> Sorry this got longer than I thought. Doug----- Original >> >> >>>> Message >> >> >>>> ----- >> >> >>> >> >> >>><Snip >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > > Thanks, > PC > > He's the kind of a guy who lights up a room just by flicking a switch > > You can't have everything. Where would you put it? - Steven Wright > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
