[Mb-civic] 9/11 Mysteries

Thu Oct 27 10:20:05 PDT 2005

Mike:

Here, here!  The two most salient FACTS (not conjecture, for those who are 
wondering...) re the WTC that come to mind for me are:

1.  If one had dropped a quarter from the 110th floor, it would have landed 
in 8.6 (or so) seconds.  This is called "free fall speed."  When the towers 
fell, they fell at just under 9 seconds - essentially "free fall speed."  In 
order for this to occur, there would have had to be NOTHING in between the 
floors of the building; i.e., all the structural supports, etc. would have 
had to "disappear."  Thus, even if we allow the "pancake theory" - i.e., 
that the floors came down on top of one another "pancake" fashion - even 
THAT would have been slowed down to a minimal degree by the time it took for 
each successive floor to "break through" the support trusses.  Thus, the 
"pancake theory" cannot explain the "free fall speed" of the collapses.  The 
ONLY thing that would have allowed the towers to collapse at "free fall 
speed" would have been if the internal support trusses and other 
structures - to say nothing of the 47-column "center core" - had somehow 
"disappeared" instantaneously.  And the only way THAT can happen is with 
explosives.

2.  To further support one of your comments, if you watch the videotape of 
the towers from the point at which the second plane hit, it took less than 
15-20 minutes for the smoke to turn from grey/white to black.  As you note, 
black smoke indicates a fuel-STARVED fire.  This means that the fire could 
only have been truly "hot" for less than 20 minutes.  However, one must also 
consider that the vast majority of the fuel in both crashes was consumed 
within the first 30-60 seconds of the crashes - and, in the case of the 
second plane, the majority of that fuel exploded OUTSIDE the building, NOT 
inside.  As well, in many video shots taken less than 30 minutes after the 
crashes, people can be seen standing - in virtually washer-clean clothing - 
at the windows of floors directly above and below the impact zones.  If the 
fires were so "hot" - enough to melt steel trusses - how come these people 
were standing there, and their clothes were not even soiled?

And the, of course, there is the mystery of WTC 7.  It had NOT been hit by a 
plane, or even debris from the crashes.  However, for reasons still 
unexplained, there WERE two SMALL fires in the building - a 
steel-and-concrete building of over 50 stories.  The "official" story offers 
the lame conclusion that the two fires - which took up less than quarter 
floor each - caused the building to collapse.  Yet we have Larry 
Silverstein's own testimony that the building was "pulled" - i.e., that it 
was destroyed by a controlled demolition.

Given that the building was admittedly on fire, it would have been 
impossible for the charges to be set that day; no company would enter a 
burning building to install explosive charges.  In addition, it usually 
takes 5-10 days to properly install such charges to take down a building of 
that size.  This means that - no matter HOW one looks at it - the charges 
HAD to be set days, possible weeks, prior to 9/11.  This begs the question: 
WHY?  Why were those charges placed in the building days, possible weeks, 
prior to 9/11?  Did someone have advance notice of the attack?  Was there 
something in the building that needed to be "covered up" so badly that the 
demolition of the entire building was required?  Keep in mind that WTC 7 
housed the IRS, the DOD, the CIA and, most suspiciously, both the FEMA 
office and Giuliani's infamous "bunker."

This, of course, leads to the final question: if charges were set at WTC 7 
days or weeks prior to 9/11, and the collapse of the twin towers was also 
the result of a "controlled demolition," doesn't that mean that the charges 
in the twin towers would ALSO have had to be set days or weeks prior to 
9/11?  And, if so, what does that say about the "surprise" nature of the 
attack - and maybe even who was behind it?

There may be no "smoking gun" yet, but eventually the evidence for 
demolition vs. the government's "official" story - which is already 
growing - will so far surpass the "official" evidence that it will only be 
because people cannot wrap their minds around the idea that their government 
could murder 3,000 of its own citizens that they will not wake up and smell 
the coffee...

Peace.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Blaxill" <mblaxill at yahoo.com>
To: <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 11:29 AM
Subject: [Mb-civic] 9/11 Mysteries

> To me there are so many holes in the official
> story that you can just take your pick - i
> started my 911 truth journey with wondering how
> in the hell three hijacked planes could get past
> our air defenses, with the one hitting the
> pentagon an hour and a half after the first plane
> hit the WTC!
>
>>From there it was to various events around NYC
> where they presented all the anomolies from the
> collapse of the WTC, especially WTC 7 ("pulled"
> according to Silverstein), to the lack of
> concern/stonewalling of the Moussaui
> investigation (Colleen Rowley's memo), to the
> fact that they had a tape of the Pentagon crash
> but only released a few (fuzzy) frames of the
> film and confiscated all others..and that's just
> the tip of the iceberg!!
>
> I went to an event where an engineer from MIT
> explained the conditions in which a building like
> the WTC would collapse, steel melt etc - fire
> temp would have to be in the thousands of
> degrees..way more than was possible at the scene.
> Kerosene, or airplane fuel, is a relatively cool
> burning fuel - and the heavy black smoke you saw
> right before the towers collapsed was an
> indication that the fire was cooling or burning
> itself out, not getting hotter and melting the
> steel!!
>
> I could go on and on - i think in the next 5
> years or so there will be a growing consensus on
> this, similar to opinion in the rest of the world
>
> PEACE
> -M
>
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:42:28 -0400
> From: Michael Butler <michael at michaelbutler.com>
> Subject: [Mb-civic] 9/11 Mysteries
> To: Civic <mb-civic at islandlists.com>
> Message-ID:
> <BF856274.25190%michael at michaelbutler.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> Ian and Mike have recently posted items
> questioning the WTC destruction. I
> held such ideas in doubt until I saw the
> show"9/11Mysteries" at the Met in
> Los Angeles. For sure there are some serious
> questions.
> However the WTC is more technical than the
> questions about what actually hit
> the Pentagon. If you saw the pictures and heard
> the report you would
> question as I do;
> Do we have another 'Reichstag' fire?
> Michael
> _______________________________________________
> Mb-civic mailing list
> Mb-civic at islandlists.com
> http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic
> 