It's amazing that the Weight of the airplane alone was enough to not cause
the building to collapse in my opinion.

Logan Vilas

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of robert and benita
rabello
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 3:35 PM
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPT 11

Kirk McLoren wrote: 


         
        Unfortunately since you arent qualified to judge what you read you
accept information based on authority.


    What nonsense!!!

    Wrap your mind around something written by an engineering firm:

    "DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY "IMPLODE"?
No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to
surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a
distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a
closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building
breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall
as 30 or 40 stories--actually "laying out" in several directions. The
outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the
significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused
structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around
the perimeter of the site. 

WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE?
Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open
office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside
of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the
building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings
alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the
burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and
redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by
the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of
these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight
of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued
until all of the floors were at ground level. 

DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE
THEIR DEMISE?
To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion.
Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the
initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes
impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible
indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in
the attack.

HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION?
The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices
(airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down
buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates
more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which
specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a
structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within
their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of
operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost
concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were
horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what
happened in New York was not a "building implosion."


    You won't likely be happy with this, but that's because you're looking
for a conspiracy that is far better explained by ineptitude.



        That is a close second to voting on the truth. It seems odd you see
organised control in the hydrocarbon industry yet the possibility of a Pearl
Harbor type episode in the 9-11 disaster is incomprehensible.


    No, it's not incomprehensible at all.  We were attacked by the Japanese
at Pearl Harbor.  Airplanes filled the sky over Pearl Harbor and dropped
torpedos and bombs on our ships.  Many of those ships were sunk in the
attack.  There's a lot of evidence suggesting a degree of threat awareness
at the upper echelons of government, but it wasn't staged by covert American
intelligence operatives, the Mossad, or even a bunch of anti-government
loonies.  There was no "conspiracy".  There was a cause / effect
relationship between Japanese torpedos, bombs and sunken ships.

  Likewise, we all witnessed airplanes being flown into buildings on
September 11, 2001.  Not long afterward, the buildings came down.  The
buildings did NOT come down until after the airplanes had flown into them.
What's so hard for you to understand about this?

    Now, the question of who financed the operation and is ultimately
responsible for the attack is one that has not been answered to my
satisfaction.  A lot of the facts don't add up, but in my mind, that's more
of an indication of governmental blundering and butt-covering than a
conspiracy.  Did the current administration white wash facts and cover
things up?  Absolutely!  Does that change the fact that two fully fueled
767s crashed into the WTC towers, set them on fire and ultimately resulted
in their collapse?  Absolutely not!

    So, if I'm going to swallow the big conspiracy idea, which one should I
believe?  I've read several of them, including:

    *There were no actual 767s flown into buildings that day.  These were
remotely piloted military aircraft packed with explosives.

    *The airframes that crashed into the WTC towers were later seen on the
tarmacs of other airports.

    *Mossad agents were detained on that day, having been caught gleefully
laughing about the "demolition" they'd supposedly pulled off.

    *The "demolition" was carried out covertly, by agents of the American
government.

    *Cruise missiles with fake wings and tail sections destroyed the WTC
towers.

    Now, which one of these do YOU approve?



         
        The photographs of the rubble pile establish where it fell -
obviously. Most of the so called technical explanations are of the type -
"If you cant dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull$$H!+"


    Not so.  The WTC towers didn't fall on their own footprints.  Many of
the surrounding buildings were also damaged as they came down.  You're
grasping at straws, Kirk!



        Forget the stories - just look at the pictures.


    Forget the conjecture and nonsense.  Look at the evidence.



robert luis rabello
"The Edge of Justice"
Adventure for Your Mind
http://www.newadventure.ca

Ranger Supercharger Project Page
http://www.members.shaw.ca/rabello/


_______________________________________________
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/

Reply via email to